The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for seeking the transfer of the case titled State of H.P. Vs. Tanvir Sheikh and others, arising out of FIR No. 411 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016, from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, H.P. to the Court at Nalagarh. The Court observed that there is nothing on record to substantiate the petitioner’s apprehension that she will not get justice or there is any likelihood of an unfair trial.
Brief Facts:
The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22.2.2014. Differences arose between the parties and the petitioner filed an FIR No. 411, dated 27.12.2016, under Section 498-A of IPC. The petitioner is residing in her paternal home. Her husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, which is still pending. A civil suit for injunction was also filed by respondent no. 4 as a counterblast to the FIR. The petitioner filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner is a struggling Advocate. She has no source of income. Respondent No.2 is a well-settled Lawyer having sufficient income. The petitioner is unable to attend the Court premises and she apprehends a harm to her. Hence, the petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner went to the Court where respondent no. 2 stated that nothing would happen to him as the Advocates of Paonta Sahib Bar Association are his friends. He also stated that his cases are not likely to be taken in the future. 10-15 Advocates, who were friends of respondent no. 2 appeared on behalf of the respondents to put pressure upon the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that FIR No. 411/2016 was registered at the instance of the petitioner at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. Challan has been submitted to the Court and is listed for consideration on charge. There is no merit in the petition; hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that before ordering the transfer, there should be reasonable apprehension of a miscarriage of justice or likelihood of bias. The mere allegation that justice will not be done is not sufficient to transfer a case to some other Court.
The Court said that in the present case, the petitioner asserted that she was pressurized by the friends of respondent no. 2 during her visit to the Court; however, she has not mentioned any date on which date she had attended the Court. It is also not shown that she had made any complaint to the Presiding Officer or the police regarding the harassment. She asserted that respondent no. 2 stated that he would not allow the completion of the proceedings expeditiously. She has not filed the order sheets of the Court to establish that there is a delay in the progress of the Trial. Therefore, there is nothing on record to substantiate her apprehension that she will not get justice or there is any likelihood of an unfair trial.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the transfer cannot be ordered in the present case.
Case Title: Mumtaz Alias Monu v State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthala
Case no.: Cr. MMO No. 280 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
