Kanchanalatha H. S. W/o Parasuram S. Agasar @ Vinay, D/o B. H. Hanumanthaiah v. State of Karnataka
2018-06-26
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. The learned counsel for the complainant present. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1/State. Heard the submission from the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition. Though this matter is listed for orders on I.A.No.1/2018 for interim relief, with consent, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 2. The present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of C.C.No.3052/2016 on the file of JMFC-I, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC read with Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 pending in C.C.No.3052/2016 on the file of JMFC-I Court, Hubballi to JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga. 3. The case in C.C.No.3052/2016 is said to have been instituted at the instance of the present petitioner, who claims to be the wife of present respondent No.2. The said C.C.No.3052/2016 accuses the present respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, originally a complaint was filed by the present petitioner at Shivamogga, however, upon jurisdictional aspect, the matter was transferred to Hubballi. Now the criminal case is pending in the Court at Hubballi, which makes it very difficult for the petitioner to travel from Shivamogga to Hubballi to attend the Court. 5. The learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of the Court that the evidence of P.W.1 has already been completed. 6. A perusal of the material placed before this Court go to show that in the petition, the petitioner has shown only two reasons seeking transfer of the matter from Hubballi to Shivamogga. The first ground being the alleged ill-health of the petitioner and the second ground being the alleged pendency of the another case against the present respondent No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.35/2016 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. To support the contention of the petitioner, a medical certificate shown to have been issued by a private practitioner at Shivamogga has also been produced, which says that, since 1½ years the present petitioner is complaining of allergic bronchitic with hypothyroidiron. Nowhere the said medical certificate mentions that the patient/petitioner is advised not to travel or that she requires constant rest and to be stationed permanently at Shivamogga, where she is said to be presently staying. 7.
Nowhere the said medical certificate mentions that the patient/petitioner is advised not to travel or that she requires constant rest and to be stationed permanently at Shivamogga, where she is said to be presently staying. 7. On the other hand, a perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.3052/2016 in the Court of JMFC-I, Hubballi shows that the evidence of the complainant as P.W.1 has already been recorded and concluded on 17.03.2018 itself. Now the matter is slated for the evidence of other charge sheet witnesses. As such, the necessity for the complainant to appear in C.C.No.3052/2016 at Hubballi may not arise at the immediate future. Therefore, her alleged health condition due to medical reasons even though accepted, may not be a ground for seeking transfer of the case from Hubballi to Shivamogga. 8. The second ground alleged is about the pendency of the Crl.Misc.No.35/2016 said to have been filed by the very same petitioner against the very same respondent No.2 at Shivamogga and which matter is said to be pending consideration in JMFC-II Court at Shivamogga. A mere pendency of another case in another Court at a different place cannot be a sole ground for seeking a transfer. Barring the same, I do not find any convincing reasons made out in the petition. As such, the circumstances of the case, neither warrants issuance of notice to respondent No.2 nor considering I.A.No.1/2018 for the interim order. As such, at the preliminary stage itself, the petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration.