Karnataka High Court
Pooja Hugar W/O Shankarappa vs Shankarappa Hugar S/O Ayyappa on 27 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100503 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SMT.POOJA HUGAR W/O SHANKARAPPA
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KADADI VILLAGE,
GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI SHANKARAPPA HUGAR S/O AYYAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: KERAGODU VILLAGE,
KERAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT,
NOW WORKING AT DODDAKOTHAGERE,
BASARALU HOBLI,
TQ & DIST: MANDYA,
R/AT # 1589/6, GIRIDHARM NILAYA,
10TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR,
MANDYA
2. SRI AYYAPPA S HUGAR
AGE: 62 YEARS,
:2:
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: K P HANAPUR VILALGE
TQ: BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KERAGODU P.S. MANDYA TALUK,
REP. BY ITS ADDL. SPP, HCK,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R2-SERVED. UNREPRESENTED.
SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R-3.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
407 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE
ORDER TO TRANSFER CRIMINAL CASE NO.76 OF 2015
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA TO THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) GADAG FOR ADJUDICATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by petitioner under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to transfer C.C.No.76/2015 pending on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gadag, for adjudication, in the interest of justice and equity.
:3:
2. Brief facts as pleaded in the petition, petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is father-in-law of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2012, in the presence of elders of both the family members. She was physically and mentally harassed by the respondents because of additional dowry demanded by them. When she joined the respondent No.1 at Mandya where he was working as School Teacher. Further she was brutally assaulted and abused in filthy language by the respondent No.1 to satisfy his demands to have one motorcycle to go to the school and threatened to give divorce if dowry amount was not brought. Therefore, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional police at Mandya and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Keragodu Police Station of Mandya taluk, for the said offences.
3. It is also pleaded, divorce case is also filed by the respondent No.1 in M.C.No.73/2014 on the file of :4: Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya on the baseless grounds and subsequently it is transferred to Family Court, Gadag by the order of this Court in C.P.No.100010/2015 vide its order dated 29.05.2015. Petitioner being a village woman and is unable to attend the court at Mandya on each date of hearing. Therefore, she is seeking transfer of the said case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also during the course of argument made the submission that she is a woman, she has to attend the case at Mandya Court and it is inconvenient for her to go there for each and every adjournment. Therefore, on the ground of convenience, petition may be allowed transferring the said case from Mandya to Gadag Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband made the submission that there are no grounds made out to attract Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for passing an order to transfer the case by taking it out from Mandya Court and made over to the Court at Gadag. He submitted :5: that the petition is without sufficient reasons seeking transfer of the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the copy of the complaint, FIR, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer during investigation and other materials produced in the case.
7. Looking to the petition averments, there are no reasonable grounds made out by the petitioner seeking transfer of the petition from Mandya to Gadag Court, it is mentioned that petitioner being the woman if the petition is transferred, it is convenient to her. Except this, there is no reason assigned by the petitioner seeking transfer of the case. Looking to Section 407(3) of Cr.P.C., Court has to look into the convenience of the parties and apart from that she is the complainant in the case. Accused are also attending for each and every adjournment. Therefore, only on the ground that it is convenient to the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There are :6: witnesses who have to attend the court to give their evidence. Therefore, the reasons mentioned by the petitioner are not sufficient to accept the petition and to transfer the case. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK