Crl. Misc. No. 36645 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. 36645 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 17, 2011 Vinay Jindal and another ---Petitioners versus Bikram Singh Sidhu ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Advocate, for the respondent *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioners, Vinay Jindal and Yogesh Jindal, have filed this petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of the Criminal Complaint No. 229A/1, titled as “ Bikram Singh Sidhu, Advocate vs. Vinay Jindal and others”(Annexure P-5) from the Court of Sh. Ashish Saldi, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction out side the State of Punjab. Though detailed facts have been given in the application, but the Crl. Misc. No. 36645 of 2010 -2- only relevant facts are that, petitioner No. 1 uttered derogatory words for Bikram Singh Sidhu, complainant-respondent, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, at the time he was deciding the transfer application and for those derogatory words not only that court issued notice but the complainant also filed the said complaint. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the Court of JMIC is going very fast in deciding that complaint as the summoning order has been passed within one month of the filing of the complaint and according to him, the second ground is that no Advocate at Ludhiana is ready to accept the brief of the petitioners on account of the influence being exerted by the complainant. If some Court is going on fast track, the same cannot be a ground for making any comments against that Court, unless some mala fides are alleged or some interestedness on the part of the Presiding Officer is being put forth. Even the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure require that Magistrate is bound to record the statement of the complainant at the time of presentation of the complaint itself and also the statements of the witnesses, who were produced by the complainant at that time. If the Presiding Officer has followed those provisions of the Code, there should be a word of appreciation for him and that should not be made a ground for transfer of the case from his Court. If no Advocate at Ludhiana is ready to accept the brief of the petitioners, they can engage some Advocate from outside. For the transfer of the case the Court is to look into a number of aspects. It is not only to see the convenience of one party but to see the convenience of both the parties and the witnesses and is also to go into the aspect whether there is a ground for coming to the conclusion that fair and impartial trial will not be possible. Interest of the society at large is the most relevant factor to be considered. Crl. Misc. No. 36645 of 2010 -3- There is nothing on the record for concluding that the petitioners will not get fair and impartial trial from the Court at Ludhiana. The transfer of the complaint will only tend to the convenience of the petitioners and not to the convenience of the respondent and the witnesses. No ground for transfer of the complaint is made out. The application is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 17, 2011 PARAMJIT