Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1093 (RAJ)

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-22

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant transfer petition, the petitioners seek transfer of criminal case institute by the respondent No. 2 Priyanka Kanwar under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005 hereinafter), from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem to any other Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2; instituted the proceeding against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem on the ground that her father was Sub-Inspector in Police Station Bheem and for long time he has been posted at Bheem and therefore, the Advocates practicing at Bheem have declined to accept the brief and conduct the case on behalf of petitioners and therefore, the case may be transferred to any other Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Bar Association, Bheem has resolved that the petitioners have never approached any of the counsel at Bheem and if the petitioners approach the counsel at Bheem then the counsel at Bheem are prepared to appear and defend the case of the petitioners who are respondents) before the trial court. A Resolution dated 06.03.2007 of the Bar Association, Bheem, District Rajsamand has been placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the Vakalatnama filed on Behalf of the respondent No. 2, it appears that as many as 8 advocates have signed the Vakalatnama. Be that as it may, the Bar at Bheem is reported to have 16-17 Advocates and may be more by now and if the respondent has engaged 8 advocates that would not mean that the remaining advocates would not appear for the petitioners. So far as the Temporary residence of the respondent No. 2 is concerned, she has elaborately stated in the complaint narrating the circumstances in which she has temporarily been residing at Bheem. It is reported that father of the respondent No. 2 has been transferred from Bheem to Railmagra at a distance of 135 km. The mother of the respondent No.2 is continuously residing at Bheem and in the circumstances therefore, she has no option expect to continue at Bheem. It is reported that father of the respondent No. 2 has been transferred from Bheem to Railmagra at a distance of 135 km. The mother of the respondent No.2 is continuously residing at Bheem and in the circumstances therefore, she has no option expect to continue at Bheem. Since the allegation in the complaint is that she has been turned out from the matrimonial home, it has been stated that since her father has been poste to Railmagra and therefore, her mother would also go to railmagra and therefore, she has independent accommodation at Bheem where she is residing for some time. Be that as It may, Section 27 of the Act of 2005 confer jurisdiction even where a person is residing temporarily and therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case warranting transfer of case from Bheem to any other Court making the respondent No. 2 lady who alleged to have been turned out to go and pursue her case. The transfer petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******