Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 18-09-2009 Sunil Panchal and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Rajni ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for transfer of complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act titled as 'Rajni versus Sunil Panchal and others' and application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed by this Court on 15.5.2008 whereby with the consent of the parties, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are directed to be transferred from Ropar to Courts at Chandigarh. Learned for the petitioner states that keeping in view the said order, the proceedings in present petition may also be transferred to Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contends that Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M) 2 proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C were got transferred as presence of the respondent was not required in them but in the instant cae, the respondent is required to be present on each and every date of hearing and that witnesses would have to be examined who are based in Ropar. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is without any merit. Complaint which has been preferred by the respondent requires her presence in the Court all the time. Convenience of the parties even though is a ground for transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C yet it does not necessarily mean that convenience of the petitioner only is to be seen. Convenience of complainant is also equally important. In the given set of circumstances it is also brought to the notice of the Court that father of the respondent is ailing and it is extremely difficult for her to come to Chandigarh on each and every date alongwith her mother who is also old. Having regard to the aforesaid there is no ground to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, dismissed. September 18 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge