Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 351 (CHH)

VINITA PANDEY v. RAKESH PANDEY

2013-12-05

GOUTAM BHADURI

body2013
ORDER 1. Since both the petitions are arising out of in between similar parties and, therefore, they are decided simultaneously by this common order. 2. The wife had filed this transfer petitioner before this Court on the ground that initially she had filed the complaint under Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read with Section 19 & 23 of the said Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandaria, District - Kabirdham. By such petition compliance of an earlier order passed, in case No. 70/2008 in between "Vanita Pandey & others Vs. Rakesh Pandey & others" on 16.03.2009 was prayed for. According to the applicant, the order was passed on 16.03.2009 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandaria, District - Kabirdham. According to the order the husband was directed that the applicant should not be subjected to cruelty or torture, either by physically or mentally by the husband. It was stated by the applicant that after passing of such order, the things were alright for certain part of time, but after 2010, the husband, with the aid & abetment of Jhumuklal Pandey and Manoj Pandey, started violating the order of the Court which was passed on 16.03.2009. Various averments have been made in such petition for complaint. Order-sheet of such complaint is also placed on record which starts from 30.03.2012. 3. Perusal of the order-sheet purports that the applicant was appearing before the Judicial Magistrate First Class continuously and on 09.10.2012, the learned Court below had asked for enquiry report from police, which was fined by the police. Thereafter, the case was fixed for preliminary evidence. From 09.10.2012, the applicant was appearing before the Court up till 08.02.2013 and thereafter no order-sheet have been placed on record. 4. The another application for transfer, which is filed by the applicant was on the same line of the initial application. A second complaint was filed by the applicant, Vinita Pandey against Rakesh Pandey and two others under Section 307 & 34 of IPC. In the said compliant which was filed on 27.08.2012, the case got adjourned from time to time and on 16.11.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had ordered for the enquiry report. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time and the order-sheet is filed in this case is also up till 08.02.2013. 5. In the said compliant which was filed on 27.08.2012, the case got adjourned from time to time and on 16.11.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had ordered for the enquiry report. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time and the order-sheet is filed in this case is also up till 08.02.2013. 5. Now, both the complaint cases are running simultaneously, wherein, in the First case the applicant had obtained dates at her own request and had appeared in all the dates of hearing along with her Advocate. The initial complaint was filed on 30.03.2012 and on each date, the complainant had appeared along with her Advocate. Similarly in the second complainant case which was filed on 27.08.2012, the complainant appeared before the Court up till 08.02.2013 and thereafter, order-sheet of the Court below has not been filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel For the appellant referred to a document, wherein it is alleged that on 02.04.2013, the applicant was threatened to take back the complaint by these non-applicants. 7. The said application though has been dated at the below is 02.04.2013, but the Thana Pandaria receipt reflects the endorsement of 02.03.2013. It appears that the applicant has deliberately avoided to file the order-sheet of the Court below after 08.02.2013 on mere submission and making allegation that the complainant has been threatened. 8. This fact is apparent from the cause title of the petition itself that the respondent No.1 is resident of Pandaria while the respondent No.2 and 3 are resident of Champa. The perusal of the order-sheet, which has been filed in the case do not reflect that any point of time the complainant had made compliant about such threatening, instead, in all the dates till 08.02.2013 the complainant was appearing before the trial Court without any protest or raised any whisper of such threat to her. Instead prayed for time to adduce evidence. 9. It is therefore, felt that mere assertion and assumption, the right of transfer cannot be assessed as special circumstances that the ground exists. If such ground are entertained on mere say for transfer of a case, it will be open the flood gates for the litigants to chose the place of their choice on various factors. 9. It is therefore, felt that mere assertion and assumption, the right of transfer cannot be assessed as special circumstances that the ground exists. If such ground are entertained on mere say for transfer of a case, it will be open the flood gates for the litigants to chose the place of their choice on various factors. Under these circumstances, prima-facie, noting has been placed before this Court to draw such presumption that the applicant was subjected to threat, which requires the exercise of power by this Court. 10. Under these circumstances, the petition has no merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. Applications Dismissed.