Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009
Date of decision : 14.10.2009
Basant Kaur .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. H.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. G.S.Toor, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The petitioner, claiming to be a 90 year old female with a heart
condition requiring constant medication, is first informant in case FIR
No.64 dated 27.10.2007 registered at Police Station, Mahel Kalan, District
Barnala which is pending in a Court at Barnala. The petitioner is yet to be
examined as a prosecution witness in that case. She has applied for
transfer of the case to Chandigarh on a plea that she would not be able to
go over to Barnala on account of old age and fragile health.
In support of the averment that the advance age and health
condition of the complainant entitles her to raise a plea for transferring the
matter to a nearer place, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.P. and others 2008 (2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 267 and Mrs. Urvashi Govind Advani Vs. State of
Karnataka 2004 (9) J.T. 99.
The plea is resisted by the learned counsel for the private
respondents by arguing that the averred ground is not sufficient to warrant
Criminial Misc. No.M-23926 of 2009 -2-
****
transfer of a judicial matter. It is argued that the petitioner can travel to
Barnala after gaining health. It is further argued that the judicial
pronouncements relied upon are totally inapplicable to the facts and
circumstances of the given case.
In Himanshu Singh Sabharwal’s case (supra), the plea for
transfer of the case out of the State was not contested by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the State. Insofar as the Mrs. Urvashi
Govind Advani’s case (supra) is concerned, the facts in that case were
entirely different. In that matter, the applicant was a widow aged 80 years
and she had to compulsively appear on every date of hearing in a Court at
Mumbai where she was facing a private complaint under Section 420 read
with Section 34 IPC. She was otherwise a resident of Bangalore. The
facts of those cases are, thus, not applicable to this case.
In this case, if the petitioner is so inclined, it will be for her to
file a plea for her examination on Commission. If such a plea comes to be
filed, the learned Court shall dispose it of by taking into consideration the
advanced age and the health condition of the petitioner.
Disposed of accordingly.
October 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No