Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.10.2009 Basant Kaur .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. G.S.Toor, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner, claiming to be a 90 year old female with a heart condition requiring constant medication, is first informant in case FIR No.64 dated 27.10.2007 registered at Police Station, Mahel Kalan, District Barnala which is pending in a Court at Barnala. The petitioner is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness in that case. She has applied for transfer of the case to Chandigarh on a plea that she would not be able to go over to Barnala on account of old age and fragile health. In support of the averment that the advance age and health condition of the complainant entitles her to raise a plea for transferring the matter to a nearer place, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.P. and others 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 267 and Mrs. Urvashi Govind Advani Vs. State of Karnataka 2004 (9) J.T. 99. The plea is resisted by the learned counsel for the private respondents by arguing that the averred ground is not sufficient to warrant Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009 -2- **** transfer of a judicial matter. It is argued that the petitioner can travel to Barnala after gaining health. It is further argued that the judicial pronouncements relied upon are totally inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the given case. In Himanshu Singh Sabharwal's case (supra), the plea for transfer of the case out of the State was not contested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State. Insofar as the Mrs. Urvashi Govind Advani's case (supra) is concerned, the facts in that case were entirely different. In that matter, the applicant was a widow aged 80 years and she had to compulsively appear on every date of hearing in a Court at Mumbai where she was facing a private complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. She was otherwise a resident of Bangalore. The facts of those cases are, thus, not applicable to this case. In this case, if the petitioner is so inclined, it will be for her to file a plea for her examination on Commission. If such a plea comes to be filed, the learned Court shall dispose it of by taking into consideration the advanced age and the health condition of the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. October 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No