IMPORTANT POINT
The comparative inconvenience of the litigant parties are not the only criterion for transferring the cases from one State to another State, but the Court has to visualize the comparative inconvenience and hardship likely to be caused to the witnesses besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 —Section 406—Transfer of criminal cases —Apprehension of threat or bodily harm or intimidation—This is too nebulous a ground for transferring the cases from Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi or Chandigarh—Petitioner has been going to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh in the past and attended court proceedings—However, no untoward incident ever brought to the notice of police or Chief Judicial Magistrate—Transfer petition dismissed —Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 446, 466, 467, 471 and 420.
       Held : The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner 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. In our view, this is too nebulous a ground for transferring the cases from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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 ever brought to the notice of the police or the Chief Judicial Magistrate by 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 18)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 —Section 406—Transfer of criminal cases—Illness of petitioner not supported by medical evidence—Petitioner has been travelling all the way from USA to India and going to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh to look after landed property—Petitioner and respondent, both practically of same age group, about 70 years of age—Comparative inconvenience of litigant parties not the only criterion for transferring cases from one State to another State—Court has to visualize comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to witness besides the burden to the borne by the State Exchequer—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 446, 466, 467, 471 and 420.
       Held : 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 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 19)
       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 transferring the cases from one State to another State, but the Court has to visualize the comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the witnesses besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses who will have to travel by train from Rampur to Delhi or Chandigarh, as the case may be, for attending the court proceedings if the cases are ordered to be transferred to transferee court. During the course of the hearing of these petitions, we are told that the distance between Rampur and Delhi is about 400-500 kms. We cannot loose sight of one more factor viz., that the criminal courts situated at Delhi or Chandigarh are already over-burdened with the pendency of the cases and it would not be in the interest of the litigating parties as well as in the interest of justice to add more cases to the dockets of the transferee courts to keep the trial of those cases pending for decades.(Para 20)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 406—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 446, 466, 467, 471 and 420—Transfer of criminal cases—Comparative inconvenience of litigant parties, not the only criterion—Petitioner and her husband having four daughters settled in United States of America—While in service, petitioner’s husband purchased some agricultural land in District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh —He appointed his younger brother, respondent 2 as his Attorney authorising him to look after, maintain and deal with his property—Allegations that respondent 2 transferred the land in favour of his relatives inspite of revocation of Power of Attorney—Their names were recorded in Revenue records by obtaining mutation orders dated 7-3-1996 in Mutation Record—Husband of petitioner appointed petitioner as his Attorney by executing Power of Attorney in her favour authorizing her to deal with his land—Petitioner filed civil suits challenging validity of sale deeds—Respondent 2 filed complaints under Sections 463, 468, 420 IPC alleging that dates of applications for obtaining copies of orders of mutations were interpolated—Transfer petitions—Supreme Court transferred civil suit from the Court at Rampur, Uttar Pradesh to the District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi—Prayer for transfer of criminal alleging that petitioner is an old woman of 72 years of age, very difficult for her to undertake journey to defend cases against her—Plea of apprehension of physical harm to her from respondent 2 not substantiated—Vague and unfounded allegations made by petitioner in transfer applications—Petitions Dismissed.(Paras 19, 20)

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2005 and Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 75 of 2005:

These are unfortunate litigations amongst the most intimate family members who are intensely involved in inter se civil, criminal and revenue litigations in various courts in different States.

2. These two transfer petitions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short, “Cr.P.C.”] have been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of case No. 3045/2004 titled as State of U.P. v. Parminder Kaur under Sections 446, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, “IPC”] and Case No. 1434/2004 under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi or to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are set out as under:-

Smt. Parminder Kaur, petitioner herein, and her husband Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (Retd.) are aged persons. They are not keeping good health and are suffering from various diseases. They have got four daughters but no son. The daughters are settled in the United States of America [USA]. The petitioner and her husband because of their old age and ill-health are almost dependent on their daughters and are residing with them in USA for getting medical treatment and care. Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh is a retired Army Officer. While in service, he purchased some agricultural land in village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. He appointed his younger brother Har Gur Saran Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, as his Attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 3rd April, 1970 authorising him to look after, maintain and deal with his property. Smt. Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, got some land in the same village and she too appointed respondent No. 2 as her Attorney on 27th March, 1991. It is alleged in these petitions that after lapse of some time the husband of the petitioner found the conduct of respondent No. 2 unfair and dishonest therefore, on 29.07.1975 he revoked the Power of Attorney given to respondent No. 2. In spite of the revocation of Power of Attorney, respondent No. 2 transferred the land of the husband of the petitioner by registered sale deed in favour of his relatives on 07th January, 1996 and 10th January, 1996 respectively. On the basis of those sale deeds, names of the relatives of respondent No. 2 were recorded in the Revenue records by obtaining mutation orders dated 07th March, 1996 recorded by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur in Mutation Record Nos. 228-B of 1996 and 229-B of 1996. According to the petitioner, the mutation orders were obtained fraudulently and at the back of the petitioner’s husband by respondent No. 2. Smt. Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, also revoked her Power of Attorney and asked respondent No. 2 not to deal with her land any more in any manner. But irrespective of the revocation of the said Power of Attorney, respondent No. 2 transferred her land in the name of his daughter Namrata Chandi and other near relatives by registered sale deed dated 03rd July, 1991 and obtained mutation order dated 30th August, 1991 of the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, recorded in Mutation Case No. 8-M of 1991.

4. The husband of the petitioner then appointed the petitioner as his Attorney by executing Power of Attorney dated 25th September, 1997 in her favour authorizing her to deal with his land at village Behait. Similarly, Smt. Amrinder Kaur appointed the petitioner as her Power of Attorney executed on 4th February, 2000 with regard to her land.

5. The case of the petitioner is that when she came to know about the transactions made by respondent No. 2 and mutation orders recorded by the Tehsildar, the petitioner filed three suits bearing Original Case Nos. 266/2002, 267/2002 and 268/2002 for declaration and permanent injunction i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document