Crl. Misc. No. M- 7660 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 7660 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 06, 2011 Sonia Malik ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Naveen Sheoran, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3 *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner, Sonia Malik, has come up with the present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of Criminal Complaint No. 517 of 2007, filed by her against Jatinder Singh and others, from the Court of Shri Rajesh Gupta, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohana (Sonepat), to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for clubbing the same with Criminal Case No. 49/5 of 2004( FIR Crl. Misc. No. M- 7660 of 2010 -2- No. 554 dated 5.11.2003) titled as 'State Vs. Jitender' in order to avoid conflicting orders . It has been pleaded therein that she is the widow of late Cap. Dr. Ranbir Singh Malik, whose death was caused by Jatinder-accused- respondent No. 2 by driving car bearing Registration No. HR 06D-7889, rashly and negligently, in respect of which the above said FIR was got registered by Satpal in Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak. The said respondent forged driving licence bearing No. 14554/D/(Sick) dated 16.11.1998 by showing that it was got renewed on 6.11.2003, though the same was already valid up to 15.11.2008. The dates were antedated in order to show that it was a valid licence. In fact, this respondent was merely 16 years old and was ineligible for applying for the licence. The same has been forged in order to get a favourable decision from the Court. The said respondent in active collusion with respondent No. 3 got transferred the agricultural land situated in village Gangesar, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, in the name of respondent No. 3, with a motive to prevent its forfeiture for the satisfaction of the fine/sentence, which is likely to be pronounced by MACT, Rohtak, in the claim application filed by him. She filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court of SDJM, Gohana, in which they have already been summoned. In case, she ables to prove the facts, so stated in that complaint, the charge against respondent No. 2 would be amended as he would be guilty of the offence under Section 304 IPC. According to Section 210 Cr.P.C., the criminal case arising out of the said FIR, which was registered under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC, is liable to be clubbed with the complaint so filed by her. These two cases are pending in different Sessions Divisions and as such the present application has been filed for the transfer of the complaint to the Court before which Crl. Misc. No. M- 7660 of 2010 -3- respondent No. 2 is standing his trial. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner is able to prove that the driving licence put forward by respondent No. 2 is forged and fabricated, he will be liable to face the trial for the offence under Section 304 IPC. That fact is to be proved in the complaint and as such that complaint is liable to be tried along with the criminal case in which that respondent is standing his trial for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Similar evidence is to be produced in both the cases and as such, the interest of justice required that both the cases be tried and decided by the same Court. I do not find any merit in these submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. The genuineness of the driving licence or that the same is forged, will have no effect on the culpability of respondent No. 2 so far as the criminal case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is concerned. He is standing his trial for having caused the death of the husband of the petitioner by driving motor vehicle rashly and negligently. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the similar evidence is to be produced in both the cases. Different facts are to be proved in both the cases. There is no question of clubbing the same. No ground is made out for transfer of the criminal complaint to the court where the other criminal case is pending. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE January 06, 2011 PARAMJIT