Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1462 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2006-04-04

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2006
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner herein prays for transfer of Criminal case FIR No. 169 dated 30.8.2003, registered under Sections 363/120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bhawanigarh, titled as "State of Punjab v. Amarjit Kaur" from the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar. 2. The present petition is on the regular board of this Court and has been shown for arguments, in the cause list, on a daily basis. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, failed to put in appearance. 4. In this view of the matter, I have no option but to proceed to decide the matter on merits. 5. The facts of this case disclose that the petitioner, who is the estranged wife of the complainant-respondent No. 2 is accused, by her husband of kidnapping their minor children. 6. A perusal of the petition reveals that the trial against the petitioner was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. On 11.3.2004, the aforementioned Court, forwarded the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for entrusting it to some other Court. On 3.4.2004, pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, assigned the trial of the case to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam. It is further averred that as the petitioner is a resident of Guru Nanakpura, Teh. Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar, where she has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and is also a Member Panchayat, the matter be transferred from the Court at Sunam, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Baba Bakala. It is further averred that as the distance between Baba Bakala and Sunam is 230 kms., it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the trial. 7. Counsel for the respondent contends that a perusal of the petition does not disclose any prejudice caused or likely to be caused to the petitioner, if the trial is held at Sunam. Mere inconvenience of a party, cannot be a ground for transfer. The inconvenience should be such as would hamper a party in the prosecution or the defence of its case and should, therefore, result in some prejudice. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 9. Mere inconvenience of a party, cannot be a ground for transfer. The inconvenience should be such as would hamper a party in the prosecution or the defence of its case and should, therefore, result in some prejudice. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 9. The facts alleged, namely; some perceived harassment caused, for which no factual basis had set out, cannot be a ground to transfer the trial. The mere fact that sunam is at some distance from Baba Bakala, in the absence of any plea of inconvenience, as would hamper the petitioner in her defence, cannot be a ground to transfer the trial. The petitioner is a Member of Panchayat, and, thus, politically active. I am of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause has been shown, as would warrant transfer of the trial from Sunam to Baba Bakala. Dismissed.