In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:24.4.2009 Smt. Bimla alias Vimla Yadav .....Petitioner v. Murti Devi and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the complaint case (Annexure-P.2) titled Murti Devi v. Shivam Filling Station, Badli through Bimla Yadav under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`Act' – for short) filed by the respondents against the petitioner from the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, District Rewari to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari or at Jhajjar. The criminal complaint (Annexure-P.2) titled Murti Devi v. M/s Shivam Filling Station, Badli through Bimla Yadav has been filed by the respondents under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act on the allegations that the petitioner took cash loan of Rs.2.50 lacs from them vide cheque dated 7.11.2002. The rate of interest for the loan amount taken by the Cr. Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 [2] petitioner from the complainant-firm was 18%. After taking the loan, the petitioner returned Rs.1 lac to the complainant vide cheque dated 29.3.2004 out of the loan amount of Rs.2.50 lacs plus interest. As on 17.11.2005, an amount of Rs.2.73 lacs became due after deducting the amount of Rs.1 lac that was paid by the petitioner on 29.3.2004 towards discharge of the liability of Rs.2.73. The complainant presented the cheque in his bank i.e. Central Bank of India, Branch Kosli on 17.12.2005 which was dishonoured on account of `insufficient funds'. After issuing legal notice, the complaint (Annexure-P.2) was filed. The case of the petitioner is that she is an old woman and living alone. There is no one to look after her or to protect her from anti-social elements. The main dispute, it is stated, is with one Hukam Singh, Ex- MLA, Ram Mehar and Gabbar Singh. The complaint (Annexure-P.2) has been filed by the respondents at their instance. They are even threatening to kill the petitioner and she fears risk to her life as they have exploited her sexually, mentally, and economically. In the year 2002, a retail outlet dealership of petrol pump of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited was allotted to the petitioner. After some time Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA and Ram Mehar came to know about the retail outlet dealership allotted to the petitioner. They devised illegal means to get hold of the petrol pump which was allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, with a mala fide intention Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA and Ram Mehar started helping the petitioner in her affairs. They gained her trust and when they saw that the petitioner was a lone woman and she trusted them then they took the petitioner to the residence of Hukam Singh and gave her a severe beating. Then they kept a gun on her Cr. Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 [3] temple and asked her to sign some blank papers. The petitioner was threatened that if she shouted then they would kill her. Thereafter, rape is said to have been committed by Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA and Ram Mehar. Thereafter, they never let the petitioner to go out of their house and whenever she was to attend a family function of some of her relatives then one of them would accompany her. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to say a word even to anyone. It is alleged that Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA and Ram Mehar many times raped her against her wishes and had sexually exploited her. They had got complete control over the property of the petitioner and she could go no where. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.11 dated 18.1.2006 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 342, 467, 468, 471 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) was registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar against Hukam Singh, Ex MLA and his son Gabbar Singh. However, it is submitted that the case for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 506/34 IPC was not registered as in the report after the inquiry conducted it was found that the offences under the said sections were committed at Kosli so the case be registered there. It is submitted that the petitioner even approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. No.M-20405 of 2006 and when notice of motion was issued, case FIR No.74 dated 25.5.2006 was registered at Police Station, Kosli, District Rewari for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 342, 506 and 34 IPC. Now the present complaint (Annexure-P.2) has been filed by the respondents with due deliberations to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the above mentioned criminal cases against Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA, Ram Mehar and Gabbar Singh. It is stated that whenever the petitioner goes to Cr. Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 [4] the learned Court to attend the proceedings of the Court, the above mentioned persons threaten her with dire consequences and if they get a chance that they would eliminate her. It is further stated that this Court had vide order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure-P.1) directed to provide adequate protection to the petitioner. However, the Police at Kosli is not taking any step in that regard and the petitioner has to go to the Court at Kosli on her own. Due to fear and threats the petitioner apprehends that she would not get a fair and free atmosphere to attend proceedings in the learned Court at Kosli. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings in the complaint case (Annexure-P.2) be transferred from the Court at Kosli to the Court at Rewari or at Jhajjar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that keeping in view the eminent threat to the petitioner, the proceedings in the complaint case (Annexure-P.2) may be transferred to a Court outside Kosli. In response, learned counsel for the complainants-respondents, has submitted that the apprehensions of the petitioner are from Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA, Ram Mehar and Gabbar Singh. It is submitted that nothing has been shown that the complainants-respondents are, in any manner, connected with them. The complainants-respondents, in fact, are pursuing their case on account of the default committed by the petitioner in not honouring her cheque for an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- that was given by her. The said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds which led to the filing of complaint (Annexure-P.2). The entire allegations in the petition, it is submitted, do not concern the complainants-respondents. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Cr. Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 [5] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. A perusal of the petition shows that the allegations that have been made are primarily against Hukam Singh, Ex-MLA, Ram Mehar and Gabbar Singh. It has merely been alleged that the present case has been filed by the complainants-respondents at the instance of the aforesaid persons so as to pressurize her to withdraw the criminal cases that have been filed by the petitioner. However, indeed nothing has been shown as to how the complainants-respondents are connected with the aforesaid persons against whom the petitioner has levelled certain allegations and as to how the respondents have been instrumental in pressuring the petitioner to withdraw her complaint against the persons against whom she has a grievance. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner as against the complainants-respondents are without any basis and even otherwise there is no material on record to show that the respondents are, in any manner, connected with the persons against whom the petitioner may be having a grievance. Therefore, on mere bald and unsubstantiated allegations a case which has been validly filed in accordance with the law is not liable to be transferred. In case the petitioner has any grievance against others she may pursue her remedies against them in accordance with law. Besides, in case she has not been provided necessary police help by the Police of Kosli which was ordered by this Court vide order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure- P.1), the petitioner may avail her necessary remedy for enforcement of the order. However, in the facts and circumstances, of the present case no ground for transfer of the case (Annexure-P.2) is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. Cr. Misc. No.M-4657 of 2008 [6] April 24, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*