Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 785 (MP)

Sajjan Kumar Panda v. Mithlesh Kumari

2001-10-31

S.S.GARG

body2001
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition under Section 407 read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for transfer of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 138/2000 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bina, District Sagar to any other Court outside the district of Sagar. ( 2. ) THE respondent has filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner for grant of maintenance allowance which is Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 138/2000 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bina, District Sagar. It is alleged that on 30. 9. 2000 when the petitioner was in the Court premises, he was forcibly taken to a room by Raju, the brother of the respondent and one another person named Dr. Pahalwan. In that room he was beaten by both of them and was compelled to pay Rs. 2 lacs. He anyhow managed to escape and sent a written report on 3. 10. 2000 to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar and S. D. O. (Police), Bina. It is further alleged that on 14. 11. 2000, he was again caught by the brother and other persons related to the respondent and again threated to pay Rs. 2 lacs or to face dire consequences. The matter was again reported by him to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar and S. D. O. (Police), Bina on 28. 11. 2000. He has, therefore, reasonable apprehension in his mind that he will not get justice from the Court of Bina and, therefore, has prayed that the above criminal case be transferred from the Court of Bina to the Court in any other district outside District Sagar. ( 3. ) THE respondent though did not file any written reply to the petition filed by the petitioner, yet the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently denied the above facts and has contended that the petitioner somehow is trying to make a false case for transfer. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no such incident ever took place as alleged by the petitioner. It has further been contended by him that the respondent being female would face inconvenience if the case is transferred from Bina to other district ( 4. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no such incident ever took place as alleged by the petitioner. It has further been contended by him that the respondent being female would face inconvenience if the case is transferred from Bina to other district ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for both the sides and having perused the material on record, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. If the respondent and her relations intended to get Rs. 2 lacs from the petitioner, they would never kill him and, therefore, the apprehension that if he appears in the Court at Bina, he will be done to death appears to be unreasonable. It is manifest from the record that though the first incident allegedly occurred on 30. 9. 2000, he did not lodge any report immediately after the alleged incident. Likewise the second incident is alleged to have taken place on 14. 11. 2000 but no report regarding the alleged incident was lodged by the petitioner immediately after the alleged incident. It is only on 3. 10. 2000 and 28. 11. 2000 respectively that the petitioner wrote written applications addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar and S. D. O. (Police), Bina. Had there been any substance in the contention of the petitioner, he would have lodged report immediately after the alleged incidents. This circumstance clearly indicates the falsehood of the allegations made by the petitioner. ( 5. ) SO far as the telegram is concerned which was allegedly sent by the petitioner on 13. 11. 2000, it refers to the fact that the petitioner is likely to be falsely implicated by the relations of the respondent in some false case. ( 6. ) MR. R. K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has sworn an affidavit in support of his contention and there is no counter affidavit to rebut the above contention of the petitioner, therefore, the contention of the petitioner should be accepted. After giving thoughtful consideration to the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I feel myself unable to accept it. The contention of the petitioner does not become reliable merely because no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner will have to establish the truthfulness of his contention independently. After giving thoughtful consideration to the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I feel myself unable to accept it. The contention of the petitioner does not become reliable merely because no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner will have to establish the truthfulness of his contention independently. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner. The Court at Bina has jurisdiction to initiate inquiry into the matter. The above circumstances indicated by the petitioner are not sufficient to show that the apprehension that the petitioner will not get justice from the Court at Bina is reasonable. It is well settled that though the state of mind of person who entertains apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension that the petitioner will not get justice must appear to be reasonable, genuine and justifiable. Under the given circumstances, I am not inclined to hold that the petitioner entertains a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he will not get justice from the Court at Bina. Since the alleged apprehension in the mind of the petitioner does not appear to be reasonable, genuine and justifiable, 1 am not inclined to transfer the case from the Court at Bina to any other District. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.