Bombay High Court
Rowena W/O. Amrinder Singh vs Amrinder S/O. Darshan Singh And Others on 14 September, 2017
Author: V.M. Deshpande
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
appln13.17 8
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.13 OF 2017
Rowena w/o Amrinder Singh,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o House of Pritpal Singh, 15,
Vidyanagari Society, Near Mount
Carmel Convent, Opp. Madhuban
Plaza Shopping Complex,
Chandrapur. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Amrinder s/o Darshan Singh,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation Service.
2. Darshan Singh s/o Nihal Singh, Aged
about 67 years, Occupation Retired.
3. Surjit Kaur Darshan Singh, Aged
about 60 years, Occupation Housewife.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3, All R/o Flat
No.201, Plot No.33, Shreeji Heights,
Sector-18, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai,
District Raigad.
4. Gurjit Kaur Sanhotra, Aged about 43
Years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Room
No.71, New MHADA Colony, Meera
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 :::
Judgment
appln13.17 8
2
Road, Mumbai. Present address:
Flat No.201, Plot No.33, Shreeji
Heights, Sector-18, Kharghar, Navi
Mumbai, District - Raigad.
5. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai. ..... Non-applicants.
================================================================
Shri Rohit Joshi, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.B. Dharmadhikari, Counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 to 4.
Shri T.A. Mirza, Addl.P.P. for the State.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for transfer of Regular Criminal Case No.500055 of 2017 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel to the competent Court having jurisdiction at Chandrapur.
3. The applicant is wife of non-applicant No.1 whose .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 3 marriage was solemnized on 21.11.2011. The couple was blessed with a daughter by name Palak. Undisputedly, Palak is residing with the applicant.
4. According to the applicant, in the year 2014 non- applicant No.1 started harassing the applicant and started making demand of Rs.8.00 lacs to purchase a flat. According to the case of the applicant, the said amount was paid. However, non-applicant No.1 continued his habit of raising demand of money from the parents of the applicant. The certain amounts were also transferred in the bank account of non-applicant No.1 by the father of the applicant either though cheques or through RTGS. The huge amount was transferred in the account of non-applicant No.1.
5. It is stated that in the year 2015, the applicant developed serious heart ailment. Not only that, she suffered from Cardiac Arrest. However, her heart was revived by .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 4 giving electric shocks when was admitted at Fortis Hospital at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. It is stated that an AICD device with Pace Maker is also required to be implanted in the heart of the applicant. Despite this, serious harassment was caused at the hands of the non-applicants. Not only that, as per the allegations of the applicant, the applicant was exploited to extreme sex exploitation. Resultantly, the applicant sent her complaint with Police Station Kharghar on 5.7.2016 by the Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and also on 9.7.2016 the report was lodged at Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur. The report, as filed by the applicant, since was disclosing cognizable offence, an offence vide Crime No.00/16 was registered at Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said FIR was transferred to Police .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 5 Station Kharghar. The investigating agency, thereafter, investigated the report and filed the final report bearing No.16 of 2017 on 23.1.2017 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case is registered as Regular Criminal Case No.500055 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel.
6. The applicant seeks transfer of this criminal case from the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel to the Court at Chandrapur. The applicant principally seeks transfer on the ground of her medical problem. Along with compilation at page No.147 which is described as "Annexure-I", the applicant has given brief summary of her medical treatment both at Navi Mumbai (matrimonial house) .....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 6 and at her parental house. All documents and list of the documents are at page No.149 of the compilation. It is stated that since 7.7.2017 onward the applicant is residing with her parents at Chandrapur.
7. The application is opposed by the non-applicants by filing their reply. The gist of the submission of learned counsel for the non-applicants is that if the case is transferred from Panvel to Chandrapur, the non-applicants will face difficulties. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Jyoti Mishra ..vs.. Dhananjaya Mishra reported at [2010]10 SCR 229. According to submission of learned counsel, the criminal case filed against the non-applicants by the applicant is a State case and thus it is baby of the State and the State is there to take the care of its baby. He, therefore, submitted that the application be rejected.
.....7/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 7
8. During the course of hearing, this Court has made a pointed question to learned counsel for the non-applicants about claim of the applicant about her ill-health to which in all fairness learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that the applicant is suffering from serious ailment and the non-applicants are not disputing Annexure-I compilation at page No.147 onward and all the documents therein. Thus, it is clear that the applicant is suffering from serious heart problem. Not only that, she had suffered from Cardiac Arrest also. However, only with the grace of Goa, her life was revived.
9. Admittedly, the applicant is residing at Chandrapur. Looking to the distance from Chandrapur to Mumbai, in my view, hardship is bound to be her in view of her medical problem if she is asked to undergo journey from Chandrapur to Mumbai.
.....8/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 8
10. No doubt, the criminal case is a State case. However, the applicant is the main witness of the prosecution case. Not only that, the other witnesses are her parents are also residing at Chandrapur. Therefore, though it is the State case and though the State is there to take the care of its own case, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that in fact it is complainant, i.e. the present applicant, who has to depose from the witness box before the Court. In this backdrop, I am of the view that the case cited supra is helpful to the non- applicants.
11. Further, it is to be noted that the domestic violence proceedings are also filed by the applicant at Chandrapur. Those proceedings were sought to be transferred by the non-applicants by filing two different applications before this Court and today itself after hearing both the parties, those two applications were rejected by this .....9/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 ::: Judgment appln13.17 8 9 Court.
12. Looking to the serious medical ailment which the applicant is suffering and since she is the main witness of the prosecution case, in my view, the applicant has made out a case for transfer of criminal case pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel to Chandrapur. Resultantly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The criminal application is allowed.
ii) Regular Criminal Case No.500055 of 2017, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby directed to .....10/-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 :::
Judgment appln13.17 8 10 be transferred from the said Court to the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chandrapur.
iii) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chandrapur should either try the case or it will be in his domain to allot the said case to any other learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
iv) The non-applicants need not attend the Court on every date and they can be represented through their lawyers. However on the material date, the non-applicants shall attend the Court at Chandrapur.
13. With these observations, the criminal application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:33:27 :::