Delhi High Court
Prashant Rathi vs State on 8 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TR.P. (CRL.) 3/2010
Decided on 08.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
PRASHANT RATHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 407
read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for transfer of the case
entitled 'State vs. Prashant Rathi' in respect of FIR No.216/2002, lodged by
the father of the deceased wife of the petitioner under Section
498A/304B/34 IPC with Police Station: Shakarpur, stated to be pending
before the Court of Shri Sanjay Garg, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, to
another Court in the same District.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order dated
07.11.2009 passed by the learned ASJ, Sh. Sanjay Garg, the matter could
not be transferred to another Court as the District Judge-VI does not have
the power to do so and, therefore, he returned the file to the same Court.
However, a perusal of the paper book shows otherwise. Vide order dated
07.11.2009, the learned ASJ directed the parties to appear before the
District Judge-VI-cum-Sessions Judge on 13.11.2009 for transfer of the
matter from his Court in view of the submission made on behalf of the
defence counsel that there was an apprehension that they would not get
justice from the Court.
3. When the matter came up for hearing before the District Judge,
he took notice of the submission made by the counsel for the
accused/petitioner to the effect that learned Presiding Officer was himself
inclined to transfer the case and without assigning any reason, the file was
sent back to the same ASJ. The said request of the petitioner was, however,
rejected vide order dated 23.3.2010 on the ground that vague and general
allegations had been made in the application for transfer and that transfer of
a case from one court to another should not be granted readily for any
fancied notion of the litigant as the same in effect casts doubt on the
integrity, competence and reputation of the concerned Judge. The District
Judge also took notice of the fact that the counsel for the accused/petitioner
had stated before the ASJ that he had no complaint against any one and the
trial may be continued before the same Court but while the cross-
examination of PW-3 was going on, another counsel namely, Mr. Anwar
Ahmed Siddiqui appeared in the Court and made a statement that the
accused had apprehension that they would not get justice from the Court.
As a result, the application of the petitioners for transfer of case was
dismissed.
4. When confronted with the aforesaid order, counsel for the
petitioner seeks to explain his earlier statement by saying that it was his
case that the District Judge-VI does not have the power to transfer the
matter from the Court of the present ASJ to the Court of another ASJ and
that only District Judge-I, whose seat is at Tis Hazari Courts has the
jurisdiction to do so. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is not
borne out from the records. There is not a whisper to the said effect in the
impugned order. Nor is there any averment to the said effect in the present
petition. The aforesaid statement of the counsel for the petitioner is nothing
but an attempt to mislead the Court. Counsels appearing for the parties are
also officers of the Court and while conducting matters, they are expected to
be fair and truthful and assist the Court by stating the correct facts and
bringing out the true position on the basis of the record. The documents
placed on the record reflect that when the ASJ directed the case file to be
sent to the District Judge-VI-cum-Sessions Judge for transfer of the matter,
the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 408 Cr.PC stating
inter alia that they had lost faith in the trial court and that the proceedings
were not being conducted fairly and in an impartial manner.
5. The order of the District Judge clearly reflects that no cogent
reasons were given by the petitioners for seeking transfer of the case from
the court of Shri Sanjay Garg, ASJ to another Court and that even earlier,
the said case was transferred from the Court of Shri S.C. Malik, learned ASJ
to the Court of the present ASJ. The District Judge has rightly held that
transfer of a case from one Judge to another casts doubt on his integrity,
competence and reputation. Transfer of cases ought not to be permitted
merely on the asking of a party. Permitting such a request without any
reasonable ground for such an apprehension expressed by a litigant would
result in forum shopping, and must be frowned upon. It appears that the
petitioners are looking for an escape route to avoid an inconvenient court,
which is not permissible.
6. This Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity
in the impugned order, which deserves interference while exercising its
inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.PC. The petition is
dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee.
7. On the next date of hearing fixed before the learned ASJ,
counsel for the petitioner shall place on record receipt of the costs deposited
with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, before he is permitted
to participate in the proceedings.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 08, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
