Transfer of criminal cases requires substantiation of threats; mere inconvenience or health claims are insufficient for relocation.

2 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.

3 These two transfer petitions under S.406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short, "Cr PC."] have been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of case No. 3045/2004 titled as State of U.P. v. Parminder Kaur under S.446, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "IPC"] and Case No. 1434/2004 under S.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. 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. 228B of 1996 and 229B 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. 8M of 1991.
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.
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 inter alia challenging the legality and validity of the sale deeds in the Trial Court at Rampur. Simultaneously, on 27th May, 2002 the petitioner filed three revi