JUDGMENT
N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. The petitioner Natha Singh has filed this petition under Section 407(1), Cr.PC for transfer in Criminal Case No. 80/87 State v. Natha Singh from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar to any other Court at Jaipur.
2. The petitioner has alleged that a complaint was filed against him and his son Jagdish Singh by one Dalip Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The complaint was filed for offences under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. In the complaint it was alleged that Dalip Singh had gone to Delhi with his passport as he wanted to go in search of job in Arab countries. It was alleged that in Delhi he met the accused persons, who assured him that arrangement shall be made for his travel to Arab countries. It was further alleged that the accused persons asked Dalip Singh that if more persons desire to travel Arab countries, the interview of those persons can be taken in the village itself and Rs. 17,000/- shall be charged from each candidate. It was further alleged that some 11 persons agreed and on September 14, 1985, the accused persons came in the village Gokulpura and they took Rs. 46,000/- as advance for arrangement of travel of the candidates to Arab countries. It was further alleged that on October 9, 1985, further sum of Rs. 1,53,000/-were also paid to the accused persons. There after on making a demand, the co-accused Tabdish Singh gave a writing under his signatures to give passport and Rs. 1,99,000/-, but subsequently Tabdish Singh flatly refused to return the amount or to make arrangement for the travel of the persons to Arab countries. The complainant further alleged that he went to lodge a report at Police Station, Sadar Delhi but the Station House Officer refused to take any action and asked him to file a complaint in the Court of law. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police Station, Sadar, Sikar under Section 156(3), Cr.PC for registration and investigation of case. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and the co-accused Tabdish Singh for the offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC.
3. The petitioner has now submitted the present petition on the ground that he is required to attend the Court at Sikar on every date from Delhi where he has been residing and doing his business. The bus route for Sikar is via Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Bhiwani, Loharu, Pilani, Jhunjhunu and Sikar. The petitioner is an old man of 64 years and is also suffering from Hypertension.
4. It has also been submitted that after unfortunate incident of mass-killing of persons travelling in Bus on the border of Haryana and Punjab by the alleged terroists, the atmoshphere in the State of Haryana as well as in the State of Rajasthan is very much changed and full of tension. On the last date of hearing, i.e., July 25, 1987, when the petitioner had gone to Sikar by a bus, he found that the people in Haryana were raising eye brow towards him. They were looking towards him in a contemptuous and hatred manner. Through out the journey the petitioner was under great mental tension and was having fear of his life in his mind.
5. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. His son Tabdish Singh has separated long ago and for the last more than 2 years they do not live together. The petitioner has been doing his business of medicine and is a man of status. Admittedly, none of the writing is in the hand-writing or under the signatures of the petitioner. The petitioner has been dragged in the case with ulterior object to abstract money from him under pressure and fear. It has also been submitted that the members of the complainant party have also made a group at Sikar and whenever the petitioner goes to Sikar they surround the petitioner, a noise towards him and press him to make the payment or for the dire consequences. It has been alleged that it is not safe for the petitioner to undertake journey from Delhi to Sikar. Whenever the petitioner undertakes the journey, remains in immense tense and fear of his life and it causes great mental torture to him.
6. A notice of the petition was also given to the complainant.
7. I have heard Mr. Tibrewal for the petitioner, Mr. Dhankar for the complainant and Mr. Shrimal learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
8. Mr. Tibrewal contended that the petitioner is an old man and suffering from hypertension and the atmosphere against the petitioner is not congenial at Sikar. It is also argued that there is a danger of the life of the petitioner in attending the case at Sikar and there would be no inconvenience even to the complainant party and his witnesses if the case is tried by some court at Jaipur. Mr. Tibrewal also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the expenses of the prosecution witnesses in attending the Court at Jaipur.
9. Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the complainant on the other hand, submitted that no ground or justification has been made out for transferring the case from Sikar to Jaipur. It has been submitted that the allegations made in the application for transfer are not correct and even if such allegations are taken to be correct, proper arrangement can be made for the safety of the petitioner by giving a direction to the police authorities. It has been further submitted that so far as the allegation made in para 5 of the petition that there was an unfortunate incident of mass killing of persons travelling in bus of border of Punjab and Haryana by the alleged terrorists no longer exists and the persons belonging to Sikh community are travelling without a disturbance in the bus from Delhi to Sikar. Mr. Dhankar in support of his contention also placed reliance on Ranjit Singh and Niranjan Singh Karan Singh v. Popat Rambhaj and Ors. 1913 (1) Crimes 623; and Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Miss Rani Jethmalani . Mr. Shrimal, learned Public Prosecutor also supported the arguments of Mr. Dhankar and submitted that there is no valid ground or justification made out by the petitioner for transferring the case from Sikar to Jaipur.
10. I have given my careful consideration to the argument advanced by learned Counsel for both the sides and have all considered the allegations made in the petition for transfer. It may be made clear at the out-set that I do not want to make any observation with regard to the merits of the case and I would only consider the allegations which are relevant for the transfer of the case from Skar to Jaipur. According to the petitioner, the route from Delhi to S:kar is via Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Bhiwani. Loharu, Pilani and Jhunjhunu. It cannot be denied that for coming to Jaipur from Delhi one has to pass through large portion of Haryana. There is no material difference in the bus route from Delhi to Sikar or from Delhi to Jaipur so far as passing through the State of Haryana is concerned. It cannot be considered as a valid ground for transferring the case from Sikar to Jaipur merely on the ground that the petitioner has to pass through certain portions of Haryana in bus. The petitioner has made a general allegation that the atmosphere against him at Sikar was not congenial and the members of the complainant party had formed a group and surrounded him and gave challenge of dire consequence. The petitioner has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that he had made any complaint in this regard before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar or to any other authority of such incident. The petitioner has made a very vague and general sort of allegation that when he had gone to Sikar by a bus on July 25, 1987, he found that the people in Haryana were raising eye brows towards him and were looking towards him in a contemptuous and hatred manner. Such allegation without naming any person or any complaint having been made to the conductor of the bus or to the local Magistrate or police authorities is of no consequence. So far as the ground of status and suffering from hypertension is concerned, in my view, these grounds have no relevant basis for transferring the case from one Court to another. Ordinarily, a case has to be tried by the Court which is competent to try the case under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there must be some impelling and good reasons for transferring the case from the Court having jurisdiction to another Court.
11. In view of these circumstances I see no jurisdiction for transferring the case from Sikar to Jaipur in the facts and circumstances alleged by the petitioner in this case. However, it is made clear that in case any help would be needed by the petitioner for the proper safety of the petitioner for attending the case, the police authorities would provide necessary arrangements and genuine help needed by the petitioner for attending the case at Sikar.
12. This petition is therefore decided accordingly.