IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M-28522 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : June 01, 2011 Unnat Marwah ....Petitioner Versus M/s TSAR BPO, through its partners Sandeep Saroha & Deepak Thakran .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. I.P.Goyat, Advocate for Mr. B.S.Rajesh Agrajit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. M-28522 of 2010 -2- By a common order, the Court intends to dispose of the present petition as well as Criminal Misc. Nos. M-28524, M-28938, M- 28940, M-28971, M-28973, M-29017 and M-29020 of 2010, as all of them have been filed by the petitioner for the transfer of various criminal complaints instituted by respondent M/s TSAR BPO and pending at Sonepat, wherein the petitioner and another stands summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and notice of accusation already served upon him. However, for facility of reference, the facts are noticed from the present petition. According to the petitioner, Sandeep Saroha and Deepak Thakran, who are partners of the respondent-firm are practising advocates of Sonepat. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in the petition as well as copy of the telephone directory issued by the District Bar Association, Sonepat (Annexure P-7) showing them as its members. According to the petitioner, whenever he is required to appear before the trial Court, at Sonepat, the two partners of the respondent-firm, who are practising lawyers, alongwith 25 to 50 lawyers, gather in the Court and create a scene with the sole purpose of overawing the Court and to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact that Sandeep Saroha and Deepak Thakran are the practising lawyers Crl. Misc. M-28522 of 2010 -3- at Sonepat. However, he has admitted that at no point of time did the aforementioned two partners or any of the lawyers of Sonepat had created a scene during the Court proceedings. Further, the petitioner had also moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of the cases to a place outside the State of Haryana but the said petition stands dismissed as withdrawn on a prayer made by the counsel representing him. On September 27, 2010 while issuing notice of motion, the Court had granted exemption to the petitioner from personal appearance. He was permitted to be represented through a counsel. The trial Court was given option to continue with the proceedings and even record the evidence in presence of the petitioner's counsel. The respondent had put in appearance on February 9, 2011 and requested for adjournment for filing the reply. On March 3, 2011, the respondent filed the reply. Noticing that the petitioner had taken up one of the ground for transfer that the trial Court was under the pressure of the bar association and some other facts had been stated which reflected on the working of the said Court, this Court called for comments of the Presiding Officer. Pursuant to order dated March 03, 2011, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, who is conducting the trial of the various complaints, has submitted his comments wherein he has stated that the allegations of presence of more than 50 Lawyers in the Court on Crl. Misc. M-28522 of 2010 -4- behalf of the complainant were concocted. The fact that the complainant was member of the Bar Association, Sonepat had not been brought to the notice of the Court, either by the accused or by the complainant and, therefore, the question did not arise that the atmosphere of the Court was not congenial for conducting a fair trial of the case. Without commenting upon the stand taken by the parties and after going through the comments received from the trial Court, this Court is of the view that for conducting a fair and impartial trial in the various complaints, they are required to be transferred from Sonepat to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. Resultantly, all the eight petitions are accepted and the trials of the eight different complaints, which are subject matter of the petitions, are transferred from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Consequently, interim order granting exemption to the petitioner from personal appearance, is vacated. However, it would be open to him, if so advised, to move the trial Court for the grant of exemption. If an application in that regard is made, the transferee Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Before parting with the judgment and after perusing the comments of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, it is Crl. Misc. M-28522 of 2010 -5- observed that the petitioner has not appeared in person before the trial Court. Therefore, a direction is issued to the transferee Court to enforce the presence of the petitioner on each and every date of the trial of the complaints unless he obtains an order granting him exemption from personal appearance. In the event of the petitioner failing to appear on any date, the transferee Court shall be at liberty to secure his presence by way of non-bailable warrants. ( T.P.S. MANN ) June 01, 2011 JUDGE ajay-1