Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 183 (JK)

Amarjeet Singh Sudan v. Diksha Singh

2023-05-10

SANJAY DHAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. By this common order, two transfer applications, one filed by the petitioners Amarjeet Singh Sudan and Jasbir Kour and the other filed by the petitioner Jaslok Singh, are proposed to be disposed of. 2. It appears that respondent No.1 Diksha Singh has filed a petition under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act.) against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Additional Munsiff), Srinagar. The respondent Diksha Singh happens to be the wife of the petitioner Jaslok Singh, whereas, the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour happen to be the parents of petitioner Jaslok Singh and parents-in-law of respondent Diksha Singh. 3. The petitioners, after narrating their side of the story as regards the merits of the petition filed by respondent Diksha Singh before the learned trial Magistrate, have sought transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff), Srinagar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. According to the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour, they are residing at Jammu and they are not used to cold weather of Sriangar, particularly, because they are suffering from various ailments. They have further submitted that the respondent Diksha Singh, in order to harass them, has filed the proceedings at Srinagar. It has been further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the said respondent in case the proceedings are transferred to Jammu. 4. The petitioner Jaslok Singh has, after narrating his version regarding merits of the case, sought transfer of the proceedings to Jammu on the ground that the Court at Srinagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by his wife as they have never permanently or temporarily resided at Srinagar. It has been further submitted that petitioner Jaslok Singh is a resident of United Kingdom and he has no relative or friend in Srinagar to follow the proceedings before the trial Magistrate. It has been submitted that the proceedings have been initiated by respondent Diksha Singh at Srinagar only to harass him and that if the same are transferred to Jammu, no prejudice would be caused to her. 5. It has been submitted that the proceedings have been initiated by respondent Diksha Singh at Srinagar only to harass him and that if the same are transferred to Jammu, no prejudice would be caused to her. 5. The respondent Diksha Singh has filed a reply to the instant transfer application in which it has been contended that after her marriage with the petitioner Jaslok Singh, she was subjected to torture, harassment and humiliation by the petitioners. While denying the allegations made by the petitioners on merits of the case, respondent Diksha SIngh has submitted that learned trial Magistrate has, after deriving satisfaction as to veracity of the acts of domestic violence committed against her, passed an interim monetary compensation of Rs.20000/- per month in her favour in terms of order dated 22.10.2018, but the petitioner Jaslok Singh has not paid even a penny to her. It has been submitted that the instant transfer petitions are merely a ploy to evade execution of the orders of learned trial Magistrate. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Jaslok Singh has already filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before Srinagar of the High Court, challenging the proceedings which are subject of the instant transfer applications. It has also been submitted that sister-in-law of the petitioner Jaslok Singh has also challenged the proceedings of the trial Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC before Srinagar wing of the High Court. It has been submitted that, in case the proceedings are transferred to Jammu, it will cause grave prejudice to the respondent as she has no accommodation at Jammu. Regarding the contention of the petitioner Jaslok Singh relating to jurisdiction of the Court at Srinagar, the respondent Diksha Singh has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Additional Munsiff) Srinagar whereby the learned Magistrate has held that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent Diksha Singh under the provisions of D.V Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Section 407 of Cr.P.C vests powers with the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Section 407 of Cr.P.C vests powers with the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of the said provision provides that the order of transfer can be made if the same is required under any provision of the Code or the same will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the ends of justice. 8. In light of the aforesaid position of law, let us now analyze the facts of the instant case and so as to determine, whether or not, the petitioners have carved out a case in their favour for transfer of the proceedings initiated by the respondent Diksha Singh against them before Judicial Magistrate First Class (Additional Munsiff) Srinagar. 9. As already noted, according to the petitioners, the proceedings have been initiated by respondent Diksha Singh at Srinagar only to harass them. It has been submitted that the petitioners Amarjit Sigh and Jasbir Kour being old aged cannot travel to Srinagar in cold weather. An additional ground has been raised by Mr. Jaslok Singh, the husband of respondent Diksha Singh that the Court at Srinagar does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by his wife. 10. So far as the jurisdiction of the Court at Srinagar is concerned, the said issue has already been decided by the learned trial Magistrate in favour of respondent Diksha Singh and, unless, the said finding is set aside or reversed by a superior Forum, it cannot be stated that the Court at Srinagar does not have jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. 11. The contention of the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour that, in the cold weather, it will not be possible for them to travel to sriangar, is also without any merit, for the reason that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, once summons are issued by the Magistrate in such proceedings, it is not necessary for the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour to appear in person before the Magistrate and to seek bail from the said Court. So, once summons are issued by the Magistrate in such proceedings, it is not necessary for the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour to appear in person before the Magistrate and to seek bail from the said Court. The proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, the petitioners are not required to appear in person before the trial Magistrate. In fact, the trial Magistrate can even alter/revoke his orders, if the petitioners, after putting in appearance before the said Magistrate, are able to show to the Magistrate that no case is made out against them. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC Online 446 has observed that the scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute, so that, after considering rival submissions, appropriate orders can be passed. Therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioners to appear before the trial Magistrate in person, unless specifically directed to do so in the event of a necessity. They can very well be represented by a counsel before the said Court. Thus, the ground for transfer of the proceedings urged by the petitioners Amarjeet Singh and Jasbir Kour on this score is without any merit. 13. Coming to the convenience of the parties, the petitioner Jaslok Singh is admittedly residing in United Kingdom, therefore, it will make no difference for him to contest the case either at Srinagar or at Jammu. So far as the petitioners Amarjit Singh and Jasbir Kour are concerned, as already noted, they are not required to appear in person before the trial Magistrate and they can very well engage a counsel at Srinagar to represent them. On the other hand, if the proceedings are transferred to Jammu, respondent Diksha Singh will be put to grave prejudice, as, according to her, she has no accommodation at Jammu and for a woman, who has been deserted by her husband, it would be very difficult to engage a counsel in a place like Jammu which is alien to her. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the instant transfers applications lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. 15. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the instant transfers applications lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. 15. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated and the learned trial Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law A copy of this order be sent to the trial Magistrate.