Criminial Misc. No.M-25847 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminial Misc. No.M-25847 of 2008 Date of decision : 24.10.2009 Joginder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General,Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 6. S. D. ANAND, J. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the various litigations pending between the parties are the outcome of matrimonial feud. It is so stated only on point of fact and the observation is not intended to comment upon the merits or otherwise of controversy pending consideration at the hands of various Courts seized thereof. It is beyond the pale of controversy, and is also born out by perusal of Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5, that two litigations pending between the parties at Rohtak were also transferred to Panipat; while one ligitation pending at Panchkula was also transferred to that place. It is the fourth litigation pending at Panchkula which is subject matter of controversy in the case before this Court. It is apparent from Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-5 that transfer of the two matters to the Courts at Panipat was a consensual affair. Insofar as order Annexure P-3 is concerned, the transfer of Criminial Misc. No.M-25847 of 2008 -2- **** prosecution in case FIR No. 747 dated 15.12.2005 under Sections 498-A, 405, 406, 323, 506 & 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Rohtak City was ordered from Panchkula to Panipat. In view of the fact that the other three litigations have already been transferred to the Courts at Panipat, it is deemed just and appropriate to allow this petition and thereby transfer the complaint case No.87 dated 18.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 341, 506 of IPC, Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and it is so ordered accordingly. In view of the verbal request made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that if a plea for exemption from personal appearance comes to be filed on behalf of the female parties, the learned Court seized of the matter shall favourably consider it. It will be, ofcourse, open to the learned Court to even thereafter, direct the personal appearance of female parties as and when it is desired by the Court, though for reasons to be recorded. Disposed of accordingly. October 24, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No