IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and
Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Date of decision: March 26, 2009
Atma Singh and Others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009
This application has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking
restoration of the main Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 which has been dismissed
vide order dated 8.12.2008, as despite the case having been taken up twice, none
appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Besides, the report made by the Registry
showed that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not filed process fee so notice
could not be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the case
was taken up before a Bench of this Court, he was appearing before another Bench.
Due to non-appearance, the present petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
It is submitted that the learned counsel for petitioners also made a request before the
Court, however, since the order had already been passed, it was observed that only
remedy was to file an application for recalling the order. The application seeking
restoration is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner.
For the reasons stated in the Crl. Misc. application, there are sufficient
grounds to restore the main petition.
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the Crl. Misc.
No. M-13028 of 2008 is restored to its original number.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Heard counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners seek transfer of the case from the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to the court of competent jurisdiction in any other city
in Punjab.
During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for
the petitioners that evidence in the case has already been led and two witnesses have
been examined. In the circumstances, the transfer of the case at this stage is not
warranted.
Learned counsel submits that he had raised a contention regarding jurisdiction of the
Court at Ferozepur for the purpose of seeking transfer. However, it is stated that he
would raise the contention before the trial Court itself at an appropriate stage. It may
also be noticed that Rupinder Kuar (respondent No.2) had filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The said petition was filed in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Tarn Taran exercising the powers of District Judge under the Hindu
Marriage Act. By an order dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P3), this Court transferred
the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Tarn Taran to the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Therefore, in
the circumstances, no ground is made out for transfer of the case from the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the court of competent jurisdiction in any other
city in Punjab.
Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 is dismissed.
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exemption may be
granted to petitioners No.2 and 3 from personal appearance. In this regard it would
be proper if the said petitioners move an application before the learned trial Court
itself. In case such an application is moved, the learned trial Court shall consider the
same in accordance with law.
(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
March 26, 2009
amit