Sunil Panchal And Others vs Rajni on 18 September, 2009

Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M)   1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                 Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M)
                        Decided on : 18-09-2009

Sunil Panchal and others
                                                  ....Petitioners

                  VERSUS

Rajni
                                                  ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:- Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the respondent

MAHESH GROVER, J

This is a petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure praying for transfer of complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20 and

22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act titled as ‘Rajni

versus Sunil Panchal and others’ and application under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar to the Court of competent

jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed by

this Court on 15.5.2008 whereby with the consent of the parties,

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are directed to be transferred from

Ropar to Courts at Chandigarh. Learned for the petitioner states that

keeping in view the said order, the proceedings in present petition may also

be transferred to Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contends that
Crl. Misc. No.M-16239 of 2008(O&M) 2

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C were got transferred as presence of

the respondent was not required in them but in the instant cae, the

respondent is required to be present on each and every date of hearing and

that witnesses would have to be examined who are based in Ropar.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

considered opinion that the present petition is without any merit. Complaint

which has been preferred by the respondent requires her presence in the

Court all the time. Convenience of the parties even though is a ground for

transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C yet it does not necessarily mean that

convenience of the petitioner only is to be seen. Convenience of

complainant is also equally important. In the given set of circumstances it is

also brought to the notice of the Court that father of the respondent is ailing

and it is extremely difficult for her to come to Chandigarh on each and

every date alongwith her mother who is also old.

Having regard to the aforesaid there is no ground to grant the

prayer of the petitioner.

Hence, dismissed.

September 18 , 2009                            (Mahesh Grover)
rekha                                             Judge