Harinand Verma vs Smt. Dipika Verma
2021 Latest Caselaw 8184 MP

M.Cr.C. No.57354/2021                                                  1




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                        M.Cr.C. No.57354/2021
             Harinand Verma v/s Smt. Dipika Verma & Another
Indore, dated 03.12.2021
        Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
        Heard on admission.
        This application filed under Section 407 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeks transfer of Criminal Case No.RCT
2580/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class
(JMFC), Jhabua to any District adjacent to District - Jhabua.
02.     Shri Nilesh Sharma raised two fold submissions. Firstly, it
is submitted that respondent No.1 herself and two of her relatives

are employees of the Jhabua Court, and therefore, the applicant will not get the justice from the said Court. Secondly, respondent No.1 threatened the applicant and in view of that threatening, in the interest of justice, the matter may be transferred to any other Court adjacent to District - Jhabua. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on 2002 (4) M.P.L.J. 544 (Deepak Shukla v/s Savita Shukla) and 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 89 (Punit Pandey & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh).

03. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the applicant.

04. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length.

05. So far as first contention is concerned, I do not see any merit in the said contention. I am unable to hold that merely because respondent No.1 is an employee and her certain relatives are also employed in Jhabua Court, the Court will be influenced. I am unable to persuade myself with this line of strange argument.

Courts are not that weak which can be influenced by its employees. Thus, this contention is devoid of substance and is hereby rejected.

06. So far as second ground is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on para - 6 and 17 of his application (Annexure-A/1). The allegations / averments are vague and ambiguous in nature and are not sufficient for transferring the matter outside the Jhabua Court.

07. So far as judgment of Deepak Shukla (supra) is concerned, a careful reading of facts of the case makes it clear that at Katni, the advocates were relatives of a party because of which no advocate was ready in Katni to accept the brief. The advocates from elsewhere also refused to attend the Court at Katni. In this factual backdrop, the Court directed transfer of the matter. The said judgment, in the factual backdrop of this case is of no assistance.

08. In Punit Pandey (supra), the Chief Judicial Magistrate acted in hasty manner. Because of conduct of the Court, the matter was directed to be transferred. In this case, there is no such allegation on the fairness of the proceedings conducted by the relevant Court. Thus, said judgments cannot be pressed into service.

09. I find no reason to entertain this application. The admission is declined and the M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2021.12.03 17:08:25 +05'30'