CRM not M-5964 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-5964 of 2013 Date of decision:
27. 8.2013 Chander Shekhar Dharni ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RN Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Hari Ram Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3.
**** Jitendra Chauhan, J.
(Oral) By filing the present petition under Section 407 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought transfer of the case in FIR No.222 dated 12.6.2003, Police Station Model Town, Panipat under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 500 of the Indian Penal Code; and the complaint No.693 dated 27.8.2003, titled as “Rajni Gupta versus Chander Shekhar Dharni and another”.
both pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Shanker Gauri 2013.08.31 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM not M-5964 o”
2. respondent No.2 is very influential person.
She is a journalist and has been appointed as Protection Officer under Section 8 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present cases.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel informs that the police has not received any complaint with regard to any threat given to the petitioner.
He further informs that the trial is at the fag end.
Even the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.have been recorded and not the matter is fixed for arguments.
He further informs that the petitioner is also a journalist and working in a news channel.
Heard and perused.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any circumstance or manner, on the basis of which, it can be inferred that respondent No.2 is in position to influence the couRs.of the trial or any threat was extended to the petitioner.
Mere presumption or possible apprehensions are not sufficient for a case to be transferred.
Earlier, during trial, the petitioner had been appearing before the learned civil Court at Panipat and he never raised this objection, not filed any application for transfer of the case.
A transfer should not be readily granted for any fancied notion of a litigant.
The yardstick is the interest of justice.
The applicant should repose confidence in the judicial process.
Moreover, there is no sufficient ground to transfer the case.
The apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and deserves to be rejected.
Shanker Gauri 2013.08.31 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM not M-5964 o”
3. In view of the above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
27.8.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE Shanker Gauri 2013.08.31 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh