Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 November, 2021
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No.25 of 2021
Mohit Kumar ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") has been preferred for transferring the Case No.42 of 2019, Smt. Sushma and others vs. Mohit Kumar, under Section 125 of the Code from the court of Additional Family Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar to the court of Additional Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. There are mainly two reasons given for the transfer, which is in para 5 and 6 of the petition. It is as hereunder:-
2
"5. That it is stated that the applicant is residing at Village Malli, Post Pundein Tehsil Saharanpur, District Saharanpur, and the respondent no.2 is residing in Ganga Enclave Dhandhera, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
6. That the respondent no.2 is a local resident of Laksar, an undue advantage and abuses and threatens to applicant frequently on each date and further says him that the court is under his influence and she will get the applicant convicted."
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.2, Smt. Sushma, who is wife of the petitioner, had filed an FIR under Section 498- A IPC in a Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee and she, at present is a resident of Roorkee. The petitioner is resident of District Saharanpur. He has to travel 70 Kms to attend the court at Laksar, District Haridwar. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the interest of justice would be served if the case is transferred from the court at Laksar, District Haridwar to the court at Roorkee, District Haridwar.
5. On behalf of the respondent no.2 learned counsel would submit that a suit for restoration of conjugal rights has been filed by the petitioner in the court at Roorkee. He is presently residing at Roorkee. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent no.2 3 is temporarily residing at Roorkee and there is no reason to transfer the case from the court at Laksar to the court at Roorkee.
6. Cases may be transferred under Section 407 of the Code inter alia on the ground of the general convenience to the parties or witnesses or if it is expeditious in the interest of justice. The respondent no.2 has filed her claim in the court at Laksar, District Haridwar. Even in cases, when jurisdiction lies with more than one court, it is the option of the party to choose the jurisdiction as per his or her convenience. According to the petition, respondent no.2 is resident of Tehsil Laksar and at present, she is staying in Roorkee. The distance between Roorkee and Laksar admittedly is 20 Kms, as told at bar by the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. Now, if the petitioner has himself filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of Roorkee, there appears to be no inconvenience for him to attend the proceedings instituted by the respondent no.2 in the court at Laksar, which is at a distance of 20 Kms. Therefore, the part of distance has no bearing in the instant matter.
4
8. In para 6 bald and vague allegations have been made and it is levelled from the mouth of respondent no.2, when petitioner writes that respondent no.2 has threatened that the court is under his influence.
9. This kind of general and bald allegations cannot be entertained to transfer a case from a court to the another court. The sanctity of the court has to be maintained, unless there are compelling reasons to consider otherwise. In the instant case, there is nothing, which may support the averments, as stated in para 6 of the petition.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to transfer the case from the court at Laksar, District Haridwar to the court at Roorkee, District Haridwar. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.11.2021 Sanjay