CRM not M-1764 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (245) CRM not M-1764 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:
03. 09.2013.
Madan Lal Katyal and another ......Petitioners Versus Mela Ram Malhotra .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition seeking transfer of the Criminal Complaint No.75 dated 26.02.2008 titled “Mela Ram Mallhotra versus Madan Lal and others”.
under Sections 323, 452, 506, 382 read with Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from the Court of Panchkula to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the other matrimonial litigation between the parties is pending between the parties in the Court at Karnal.
However, the complaint in question is pending at Panchkula.
Learned counsel for the Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.06 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-1764 of 2013 (O&M) -2- petitioners has prayed that the criminal complaint in question be also transferred to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that occurrence in question had taken place at Panchkula.
Hence, the proceedings were liable to continue at Panchkula.
Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-2).in brief, is that younger son of the complainant was married to daughter of the petitioners in the year 2001.
Due to some differences between the couple, Ashish Malhotra and Pooja Malhotra were residing separately since the year 2001.
Due to this reason, complainant disowned his son and a notice was published in the newspaper in this regard on 10.03.2006.
Ashish Malhotra and his wife, at the instigation of the petitioneRs.started harassing the complainant.
As a result of this, complainant filed a suit for mandatory injunction to get the fiRs.floor of his house vacated from his son Ashish Malhotra.
The said suit was pending.
Ashish Malhotra, in connivance with his wife and the petitioneRs.filed a suit against the complainant claiming half share in House No.722, Sector – 7, Panchkula.
False FIR was got registered against the complainant and his son by Pooja Malhotra, daughter of the petitioneRs.Pooja Malhotra had also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the complainant and his son Ashish Malhotra on 11.02.2008.
At about Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.06 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-1764 of 2013 (O&M) -3- 4.00 p.m., petitioners along with two – three other persons came to the house of the complainant with an intention to take away the articles lying in the house of the complainant.
When the complainant and his son Ashish Malhotra tried to stop the petitioners from doing so, they manhandled the complainant and his son.
Due to the intervention of the police and neighbors of the complainant, accused left the spot.
Hence, the complaint in question was lodged against the petitioneRs.Thus, in the present case, lot of litigation is pending between the parties.
However, so far as the respondent is concerned, he has disowned his son Ashish Malhotra who was married to the daughter of the petitioneRs.Occurrence in question took place at Panchkula.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for transfer of the complaint from the Court at Panchkula to Karnal is made out.
Dismissed.
However, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court during trial shall remain exempted subject to the following conditions:- i.
petitioners shall be represented through counsel; ii.
shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; iii.shall not dispute their identity as accused; iv.shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.06 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-1764 of 2013 (O&M) -4- their counsel.v.shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court.
vi.
any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 03, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.09.06 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document