Bitoo @ Kavita & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 63 of 1999
Petitioner: Bitoo @ Kavita & Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors.
Apeal: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 63 of 1999
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 08, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 406 – Transfer – Criminal case launched at Faridkot, Punjab – Accused persons, residents of Dehradun, U.P. – Another case pending at Delhi. Held that it is just and proper to transfer the case at Faridkot to courts at Delhi.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. There is a criminal case pending against three ladies and two others, one of whom is the husband of the third petitioner and the other is the husband of Smt. Anil Prabha, at whose instance criminal case had been launched for the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Section 4-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, Punjab. The petitioners are residents of Dehradun in U.P. The allegation is that on the registration of the case, four petitioners including two ladies were arrested by the police. They were handcuffed and paraded through the street and the news had been flashed in the local newspapers and all of them were put up in the lock-up during the entire night and they were produced before the court only on the next day. We are not now at the question of the persecution allegedly inflicted on the petitioners. While dealing with this matter, our concern is whether it is just and proper to transfer the case from
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot to court in Delhi since
another case is pending between Smt. Anil Prabha and her husband – the fifth petitioner. It is admitted that such a case is pending before the District Court, Delhi.
2. In the circumstances, we deem it necessary to transfer the criminal case also to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We, therefore, order Case No. 72 of 1998 (titled: State of Punjab v. Neeraj Kumar & Four Ors.) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We permit the said Magistrate to assign the case to any other court within his domain.
1. There is a criminal case pending against three ladies and two others, one of whom is the husband of the third petitioner and the other is the husband of Smt. Anil Prabha, at whose instance criminal case had been launched for the offences under Sections 406, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Section 4-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, Punjab. The petitioners are residents of Dehradun in U.P. The allegation is that on the registration of the case, four petitioners including two ladies were arrested by the police. They were handcuffed and paraded through the street and the news had been flashed in the local newspapers and all of them were put up in the lock-up during the entire night and they were produced before the court only on the next day. We are not now at the question of the persecution allegedly inflicted on the petitioners. While dealing with this matter, our concern is whether it is just and proper to transfer the case from
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot to court in Delhi since
another case is pending between Smt. Anil Prabha and her husband – the fifth petitioner. It is admitted that such a case is pending before the District Court, Delhi.
2. In the circumstances, we deem it necessary to transfer the criminal case also to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We, therefore, order Case No. 72 of 1998 (titled: State of Punjab v. Neeraj Kumar & Four Ors.) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We permit the said Magistrate to assign the case to any other court within his domain.
