Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Chopra vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 April, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006
.....
Date of decision:15.4.2009
Ajay Chopra
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
None for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.5.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking transfer of all cases pending between the parties arising out of case FIR No.6 dated 3.1.2003 registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 209 IPC from the Courts at Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Haryana.
The petitioner, it is stated, is a practicing lawyer in the District Courts, Ludhiana. He is being prosecuted in case FIR No.6 dated 3.1.2003 registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 are also Advocates. Respondent No.4 is a Clerk of respondent No.2. They are the complainants in the case. It is submitted that tension brews up in the Court when the parties appear as a result of which there is no Cr. Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006 [2] congenial atmosphere or decorum in the Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the matter is liable to be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Haryana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has submitted that the case may be transferred to any place outside Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that he has no objection to the transfer of the case.
Respondents No.2 to 4 have not put in appearance. A perusal of the order sheet shows that they had taken time to file reply and vide order dated 21.4.2008 last opportunity was granted to file reply subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The defence of the said respondents was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 16.12.2008. On 11.2.2009, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 ensured that the order dated 16.12.2008 would be complied with. However, no one is present on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in the trial of the case titled State v. Vijay B. Verma and 15 others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, 57 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution Therefore, it is submitted that in case the said case is transferred out of Ludhiana, it would be difficult to secure the presence of the witnesses before the Court.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that a prayer has been made for transfer of five cases from the Courts at Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction outside Ludhiana.
Cr. Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006 [3] The cases mentioned at Sr. No. (i) to (iv) in the head note of the petition are criminal revision petitions and are pending in the Courts of different Additional Sessions Judges at Ludhiana. Case mentioned at Sr. No. (v) is the trial case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. It is in the said case at Sr. No. (v) that 57 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. In the circumstances, it would be inexpedient to transfer the trial of the case which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Ludhiana as the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution are primarily from Ludhiana. However, the other cases which are criminal revision petitions pending in the different Courts of Additional Sessions Judges may in the facts and circumstances be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction outside Ludhiana. Besides, they can be consolidated before one Court.
Accordingly, cases mentioned at Sr. No. (i) to (iv) in the head note of the petition are liable to be withdrawn from the respective Courts of Additional Sessions Judges and transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and the learned Sessions Judge may hear the criminal revision petitions himself or entrust them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the trial of the case at Sr. No.(v) State v. Vijay B. Verma is not liable to be transferred and the petition seeking transfer of the said case at Sr. No.(v) merits dismissal.
In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction that cases at Sr. Nos.(i) to (iv) as detailed in the head note of the petition are withdrawn from the respective Courts of Additional Sessions Judges at Ludhiana and transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Cr. Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006 [4] Sahib may hear the cases or assign them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 20.5.2009. In case, respondents No.2 to 4 do not appear, they shall be informed by the transferee Court regarding the transfer of the cases. The prayer for transfer of case at Sr. No. (v) titled State v. Vijay B. Verma pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is dismissed. April 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*