SMT. PARMINDER KAUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 14-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• .J 
SMT. PARMINDER KAUR 
A 
' 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
MARCH 14, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, JJ.] 
B 
" 
,. 
_., 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 197.J: "·· 
s.406-Transfer petitions-Praying for transfer of criminal cases pending c 
against the petitioner ji-om Rampur, UP. to Delhi or Chandigarh-On ground 
of threat to her life in conducting trial at Rampur and on ground of old age 
and illness-Held: Allegations/plea made by petitioner are vague and 
unsubstantiated-Further she is a person of means and it is not difficult for 
her to attend hearing of criminal cases at Rampur-Comparative 
inconvenience of litigant parties is not the only criteria for transfer of cases D 
ji-om one State to another-Court to also visualize comparative inconvenience 
and hardships likely to be caused to witnesses besides the burden to be 
borne by the State Exchequer in meeting travelling and other expenses of 
witnesses for attending proceedings in the transferee Court-Also, Criminal 
Courts in De/hi/Chandigarh are already over burdened with pendency of 
cases-It would not be in interest of litigating parties as well as in interest E 
of justice to add more cases-Petitions accordingly dismissed. 
Disputes arose between the petitioner and her brother-in-law Respondent 
No.2 over mutation orders recorded in the Revenue Records in respect of 
certain lands situated in the District Rampur, U.P. The same led to civil, F 
criminal and revenue litigations between the parties in various Courts in 
different States. 
' 
The Petitioner has filed the present two transfer petitions under Section 
406, CrPC for transfer of criminal cases pending against her in the Court of 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, U.P. to the Court of Chief Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi or to the Court of Chief Judicial G 
I 
Magistrate, Chandigarh on ground of threat tc her life in conducting trial at 
Rampur and on ground of old age and illness. 
Dismissing the Transfer Petitions, Court 
1021 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: l. The first ground urged by the petitioner is that if she has to 
~ ' 
go to Rampur to attend the proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, her safety would be in danger or she apprehends physical harm 
to her from respondent No.2 or anti-social elements, is too nebulous a ground 
for transferring the cases from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
B 
Rampur, to the·Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi or Chandigarh. The 
petitioner has not substantiated her apprehension of threat or bodily harm or 
intimidation from respondent No. 2 or other anti-social elements as alleged 
by her. She has been going to Rampur in the past and attended the court 
'.. .... 
proceedings before Magistrate and Collector but no untoward incident was 
I-
ever brought to th~ notice of the police or the Chief Judicial Magistrate by 
c her against respondent No.2. If the petitioner fears any sort of threat to her 
life, she can report the matter to the police or the Court who, in its turn, can 
after considering the needs of the situation, pass orders according to law 
including appropriate directions for police protection. 
[Para 181 (1030-E-F-GI 
D 
2. The next plea of illness of the petitioner is not supported by medical 
evidence. The petitioner has been travelling all the way from USA to India 
and going to Rampur to look after the landed property of her husband and 
daughter as their Attorney. She has been going and attending the cases in 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in the civil court at Delhi 
E pending inter se the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner and 
respondent No.2, both practically seem to be of the same age group. The 
petitioner has also filed criminal case against respondent No.2 at Chandigarh 
and he has been attending the proceedings of the said case going all the way 
from Rampur and covering a distance of about 500 kms. as averred by him in 
his counter affidavit. [Para 191 (1030-H; 1031-A-BI 
F 
3. The petitioner is a person of means and it will not be difficult for her 
to attend the hearing of the criminal cases pending in the Court of Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. The comparative inconvenience of the litigant 
parties are not the only criterion for trlmsferring the cases from one State 
G 
to another State, but the Court has to visualize the comparative inconvenience 
and hardships likely to be caused to the witnesses besides t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.