JUDGMENT
Tej Shankar, J.
1. This petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for transfer of the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha.
2. It has been alleged in the petition that after the marriage of the petitioner took place on 22.5.1986 at Chhatarpur, she came with her husband to Vidisha, her matrimonial home. He father Babulal gave dowry according to his means. The marriage had taken place under the mass marriage function. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash, golden chain, locket etc. etc. were given. After the marriage, the husband and other opposite parties started misbehaving with her, saying that nothing was given in dowry. She was being threatened and forced to bring Rs. 50,000/-, motor-cycle, fan, sofa-set etc. from her father and in case it was not brought she was threatened that she would be killed. She went twice to the husband’s house, but she was ill-treated. On 14.6.87, at about 2 a.m. Opposite Party No. 3 Ashok Kumar forced her to write a letter to her father, which she refused and hence she was beaten. She received several injuries. The opposite parties are residents of Vidisha and are influential persons. They had good connections with the Court people. They were giving threats that if whatever said was not accepted by her, the petitioner as well as her witnesses would be killed. It is, therefore, prayed that the case be transferred from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha to any other Court in any of the adjoining districts.
3. The application has been opposed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not alleged to lodge FIR at Vidisha and she had to lodge it at Chhatarpur and after investigation it was sent to Vidisha and thereafter the prosecution started. The petitioner apprehends danger to her own life and to the life of her witnesses. The learned Counsel referred to two letters, photo-stat copies of which have been filed, and which go to show that threats were extended to the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the non-applicants contended that there is nothing on record to show that the two letters, on which reliance has been placed, were sent by the non-applicants or any one of them. He urged that affidavits in that regard have also been filed by the non-applicants that they do not bear their signatures. The whole family of the non-applicants has been roped in order to harass the non-applicants. There is no justifiable reason for transfer.
5. Learned Counsel further contended that two of the witnesses have already been examined and their statements have been recorded. Thereafter the case was stayed on obtaining orders from this Court.
6. I have considered the contentions raised before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that there is nothing on record to show that the two letters, which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner bear signatures of the non-applicants or any one of them. On the other hand, there is an affidavit to show that it does not bear their signatures. Apart from it, the petitioner may seek protection at the time she appears in Court, if she apprehends any danger. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground for transfer of the case and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the case and shall see that necessary protection is given to the petitioner as and when she comes to appear in the Court, in case the petitioner requests for such protection.
