Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shakuntla Devi vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 30 July, 2018
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.78 of 2018.
Reserved on :23.7.2018 Decided on :30th July, 2018.
.
Shakuntla Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & anr. ....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Addl. Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 407 (1) ( c ) read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for transfer of Sessions Trial No.17 of 2017, titled State vs. Chanchal Dev, pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur to the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Shimla.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner lodged an FIR No.67 of 2017, dated 30.5.2017, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:00:13 :::HCHP 2against respondent No.2-Chanchal Dev (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'). Respondent No.2-accused maintained bail application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, .
before the learned Trial Court and the same was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 30.1.2018, whereby accused was granted bail. The petitioner is mother of the victim-
prosecutrix. At the time of occurrence, the victim is minor, studying in 11th Class in Public School Bhareri and was residing in the house of her maternal uncle. The accused is running a karyana shop alongwith his father at Bhareri, where the prosecutrix was studying in Public School. The father of the prosecutrix is a Government employee and serving in Health Department at Kotkhai and suffering from paralytic attack, for which, he is getting regular treatment from Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and not in a position to travel long distance and moreover, he requires a permanent attendant to lookafter. Not only this, the petitioner has two small school going children, who are also studying in lower classes at Kotkhai, District Shimla. The petitioner is not in a position to take her daughter from Kotkhai to Hamirpur, to proceed with the case, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the trial is required to be transferred to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:00:13 :::HCHP 3 the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, as the victim as well as the petitioner is from Shimla and so, it will be appropriate and in the interest of justice, if the trial is conducted at Shimla. On the .
other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that statement of the petitioner as well as the victim have already been recorded in camera proceedings before the learned Trial Court, as it is a fit case that other witnesses are from Hamirpur, transfer of the case to Shimla, will cause unnecessary expenditure to the State and otherwise also, it will not be appropriate and in the interest of justice and prays for dismissal of the petition. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the trial may be transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, to meet the ends of justice.
4. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that statement of the petitioner and her daughter has already been recorded before the learned Trial Court. The other prosecution witnesses are from Hamirpur and it is a case of the State, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by transferring the matter from Hamirpur to Shimla. Rather, the interest of justice demands that the matter should continue at the present place i.e. Hamirpur, as other prosecution witnesses hails from that place.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:00:13 :::HCHP 45. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of any merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending .
application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
th
30 July, 2018 Judge
(CS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 23:00:13 :::HCHP