IMPORTANT POINT
Before ordering transfer of petition, there should be reasonable apprehension of miscarriage of justice or likelihood of bias.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the transfer of the petition titled Mumtaz alias Monu vs. Tanvir Sheikh and others, filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Domestic Violence Act) from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Paonta Sahib to a competent Court at Nalagarh. It has been asserted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 22.2.2014. There were differences between the parties and the petitioner filed an FIR No. 411 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. Respondent No. 4 (Shokat Ali) filed a suit against the petitioner and his son asserting that they were not residing in his house. The petitioner filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner is residing in Mohali. She has no source of income. Her articles are lying with the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is a well-settled Lawyer, whereas the petitioner is a struggling Advocate. She is residing in her parental home at a distance of 150 kilometres and there is a likelihood that harm would be caused to her. Hence, it has been prayed that the petition be allowed and the case be transferred from the Court of learned ACJM, Paonta Sahib to Nalagarh.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply by respondent no. 2, taking preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and locus-standi, and the petition being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the petitioner had not produced the evidence before the learned Trial Court despite adequate opportunities. When the learned Trial Court made it clear that no further opportunities would be granted, the present petition has been filed to harass the respondents. All the respondents have not been made parties. The parties last resided at Mohali, and not at Paonta Sahib. The petitioner is also an Advocate practising in Punjab and Haryana High Court. Respondent No. 2 had to shift to the house of the petitioner in Mohali where he was humiliated. She asked respondent no. 2 to dispose of his property and bring the money to Chandigarh. When he declined, the petitioner filed false complaints. Respondent No. 2 had divorced the petitioner on 19.12.2016 and the petitioner filed various petitions thereafter. These proceedings are abuse of the process of the Court. Respondent No. 2 is also a struggling Advocate as he had to leave his practice in Mohali. The transfer of the case to Nalagarh will cause a serious prejudice to the respondents who will have to approach Nalagarh at a distance. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

4. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000) 6 SCC 204 that the Court is justified in transferring the matter from one Court to another when the public confidence in the fairness of a trial is seriously compromised. It was observed:-

7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is condu