KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. MOOL, RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mrs. Kaushalya Devi is being tried along with three other persons in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. These criminal proceedings commenced on a complaint made by Mool Raj Hukam Chand against the petitioner and three other persons alleging that the four accused persons had committed offences under section 420 read with s. 120B of the Penal Code. The complainants case is that the transaction between him and the petitioner in relation to the registration of Plot No. 210 in Meenakashi Garden was the result of cheating. This transaction took place, according to him, in June, 1959, and the complainant had paid to the petitioner Rs. 1150 at the time of the registration of the document. According to him, the plot shown to him and given in his possession in pursuance of the said transaction did not belong to the petitioner and that, in substance, is the basis of the charge under s. 420 read with s. 120B I.P.C. The complaint alleges that after independence, a profession of colonisers who cheat the illiterate and poor people by clever means and relieve them of their hard-earned income, has grown in Delhi, and the complainants grievance against the petitioner and the three other persons mentioned by him in his complaint appears to be that they belong to this class of dishonest Colonisers. The complaint was filed in the Court of Mr. R. N. Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi.

(2.) After the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate, an application was made on her behalf under s. 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for her discharge, but no order was made on the said application. The petitioner alleges in her present petition that after she moved the learned Magistrate under s. 253(2) of the Code, the complainant realised that his complaint suffered from several infirmities, and so, he began to make additions and improvements in the case set out by him against the petitioner. With that object he urged before the learned Magistrate that though the transaction between him and the petitioner was substantially carried through by the agents of the petitioner who are the three other accused persons in the case, the petitioner was present at the spot at the relevant time and he suggested that his witnesses would identify the petitioner as the person who was present at the spot on the relevant and material occasion during the course of the negotiations and before the transaction was finalised.

(3.) On this representation, the complainant obtained an order from the learned Magistrate, Mr. Grover who was then trying the case, that the petitioner should be produced in court on the 29th May, 1962. Till then, the learned Magistrate had dispensed with the personal appearance of the petitioner in court, but by the order passed by him on the 29th May, 1962, she was directed to be present in court in order to give an opportunity to the complainants witnesses to identify her. The petitioners case is that she was not present on the scene, and so, none of the complainants witnesses had seen her at all; the complainants motive in requiring the petitioner to be present in court was obvious - if the petitioner attended the court, she would be asked to sit in the place meant for accused persons and, even otherwise in all probability, she would be the only lady present in court. That is how the complainants witnesses could easily pretend to identify her as the person who was present on the scene. Apprehending that this order would lead to her prejudice, the petitioner moved this Court for transfer of the proceedings pending against her before Mr. Grover (Transfer Petition No. 8/1962). At the hearing of the said petition, this Court adjourned the matter for three weeks to enable the petitioner in the meantime to apply to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to a Magistrate drawn from a State other than Punjab. Interim stay which had been granted by this Court after admitting the transfer petition was ordered to continue till the disposal of the said petition.