Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayashree vs Uday on 4 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 4th day of April 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.9513/2016
Between:
Smt. Jayashree, W/o Uday Harkuni,
Aged about 34 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o. C/o. Daddamani,
# No.1542, Near Uday School,
Ramathreetha Nagar, Belagavi. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, Advocate)
And:
1. Uday,
S/o Ramchandra Harkuni,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Private Service,
R/o. # 114, MIG-I,
Gandhinagar,
Gokul Road, Hubballi.
2. Smt. Lalita,
W/o Ramchandra Harkuni,
Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Huosehold,
R/o. # 114, MIG-I,
Gandhinagar,
Gokul Road, Hubballi.
:2:
3. Ramchandra Harkuni,
Aged about 66 years,
Occ: Retired employee of BSNL,
R/o. # 114, MIG-I,
Gandhinagar,
Gokul Road, Hubballi.
4. Kumari Manjula,
D/o Ramchandra Harkuni,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Private School Teacher,
R/o. # 114, MIG-I,
Gandhinagar,
Gokul Road, Hubballi.
5. State of Karnataka,
Women Police Station,
Hubballi-Dharwad,
Hubballi Sub-Division,
Rep. By the State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad. ...Respondents
(By Sri V.S. Bichagatti, Advocate for R1 to R4
Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP for R5)
This petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.
praying this Court to transfer the Criminal Case
No.6494/2015 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on
the file of JMFC-I Court, Hubballi to any of the JMFC Court,
Belagavi, competent to try the offences having territorial
jurisdiction.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
:3:
ORDER
Though the petition is listed in the orders category, with the consent of both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner- complainant under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking transfer of the Criminal Case No.6494/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the JMFC-I Court, Hubbali to any of the JMFC Court, Belagavi, competent to try the offences having territorial jurisdiction.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.5-State.
:4:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that because of the ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the petitioner herein, she lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the said case is presently pending in the Court at Hubballi. Learned counsel further made submission that the petitioner has also filed a case against her husband, respondent No.1 herein, seeking maintenance and the same is pending in the Court at Belagavi. The learned counsel submitted that it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Hubballi to attend the court proceedings in the said criminal case. Hence, he submitted that when the petitioner has instituted a maintenance case before the Court at Belagavi, and her husband, respondent No.1 herein, has already entered appearance in the said case, there would be no difficulty for the respondents to appear before the Court at Belagavi. He submitted that the petitioner/complainant being a female, she has to travel all the way from Belagavi to Hubballi to attend the court proceedings and that it is not convenient for her to :5: attend the court proceedings. He also submitted that out of the twelve witnesses examined in the criminal case, nine witnesses are natives of Belagavi and therefore, it will be convenient not only for the petitioner/complainant but also for the witnesses, if the criminal case is transferred from the Court at Hubballi to the Court at Belagavi. Therefore, he submitted to allow the petition and to transfer the said criminal case from the Court at Hubballi to the Court at Belagavi.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.5-State submitted that he will leave the matter to the Court and the Court may proceed to pass suitable orders on the merits of the case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 made the submission that the reasons assigned by the petitioner seeking transfer of the criminal case to the Court at Belagavi are not at all in compliance with the requirements of Section 407 of Cr.P.C. He made the submission that the Court has to consider the :6: convenience of both the sides and not the convenience of the petitioner alone. He submitted that respondent No.3, who is the father of respondent No.1, is aged 79 years and is suffering from old age ailments and that respondent No.2, who is the mother of respondent No.1, is aged 71 years and she has already suffered heart- attack. Hence, he submitted that not only the convenience of the petitioner, but the convenience of the respondents herein also has to be looked into by this Court. He further submits that looking to the grounds urged at para 11 of the petition, conveniently, it is mentioned about the witnesses, who are none other than the relatives of the petitioner. Hence, it is his contention that if the case is taken out from the Court of Hubballi and made over to the Court at Belagavi, much inconvenience would be caused to the respondents, and more particularly it is very difficult for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to attend the court proceedings at Belagavi by travelling from Hubballi. Hence, he submitted that the :7: petitioner has not made out a case for transfer of the criminal case, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also other materials produced in support of the case of the petitioner.
8. Looking to the petition averments and the grounds urged seeking transfer of the criminal case, there are no allegations made as against the Presiding Officer. It is also not the case of the petitioner that if the pending criminal case is prosecuted before the Court at Hubballi, she will not get fair justice at the hands of the said Court. The ground urged in the petition is that she being female, it is very difficult for her to travel to Hubballi from Belagavi. The other ground urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the criminal case is that she has filed a case against her husband, respondent No.1 herein) and the said case is pending before the Court at Belagavi and therefore, if the order transferring the criminal case is passed, the respondents will not be :8: put to any hardship nor respondents will suffer any injury. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, respondent No.3, father-in-law of the petitioner, is suffering from old age and is aged 79 years, and so also respondent No.2, mother-in-law of the petitioner, is aged 71 years and she has already suffered heart-attack once, and therefore, it would be difficult for the respondents, more particularly, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to travel to Belagavi to attend the Court proceedings, if the criminal case pending before the Court at Hubballi is transferred to the Court at Belagavi. As submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that if convenience point is to be appreciated, it would be convenient for both the parties, if the proceedings in criminal case are continued in the Court at Hubballi.
9. Therefore, considering the entire materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner :9: for transferring the said criminal case taking it out from the Court at Hubballi and make it over to the Court at Belagavi. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.
In view of rejection of the petition, I.A. No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms