Punjab and Haryana High Court
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 2646 of 2009 on 12 October 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009 andCrl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Date of decision: March 26, 2009
Atma Singh and Others
….. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
….. Respondents
Present:Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
Crl. Misc. No. 2646 of 2009
This application has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seekingrestoration of the main Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008 which has been dismissedvide order dated 8.12.2008, as despite the case having been taken up twice, noneappeared on behalf of the petitioners. Besides, the report made by the Registryshowed that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not filed process fee so noticecould not be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the casewas taken up before a Bench of this Court, he was appearing before another Bench.Due to non-appearance, the present petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.It is submitted that the learned counsel for petitioners also made a request before theCourt, however, since the order had already been passed, it was observed that onlyremedy was to file an application for recalling the order. The application seekingrestoration is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner.
For the reasons stated in the Crl. Misc. application, there are sufficientgrounds to restore the main petition.
Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the Crl. Misc.No. M-13028 of 2008 is restored to its original number.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13028 of 2008
Heard counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners seek transfer of the case from the Court of learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to the court of competent jurisdiction in any other cityin Punjab.
During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel forthe petitioners that evidence in the case has already been led and two witnesses havebeen examined. In the circumstances, the transfer of the case at this stage is notwarranted.
Learned counsel submits that he had raised a contention regarding jurisdiction of theCourt at Ferozepur for the purpose of seeking transfer. However, it is stated that hewould raise the contention before the trial Court itself at an appropriate stage. It mayalso be noticed that Rupinder Kuar (respondent No.2) had filed a petition underSection 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The said petition was filed in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Tarn Taran exercising the powers of District Judge under the HinduMarriage Act. By an order dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P3), this Court transferredthe proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Tarn Taran to the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Therefore, inthe circumstances, no ground is made out for transfer of the case from the court oflearned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the court of competent jurisdiction in any othercity in Punjab.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exemption may begranted to petitioners No.2 and 3 from personal appearance. In this regard it wouldbe proper if the said petitioners move an application before the learned trial Courtitself. In case such an application is moved, the learned trial Court shall consider thesame in accordance with law.
March 26, 2009amit
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE