PRASHANT RATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for transfer of the case entitled `State vs. Prashant Rathi' in respect of FIR No.216/2002, lodged by the father of the deceased wife of the petitioner under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC with Police Station: Shakarpur, stated to be pending before the Court of Shri Sanjay Garg, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, to another Court in the same District.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the learned ASJ, Sh. Sanjay Garg, the matter could not be transferred to another Court as the District Judge-VI does not have the power to do so and, therefore, he returned the file to the same Court. However, a perusal of the paper book shows otherwise. Vide order dated 07.11.2009, the learned ASJ directed the parties to appear before the District Judge-VI-cum-Sessions Judge on 13.11.2009 for transfer of the matter from his Court in view of the submission made on behalf of the defence counsel that there was an apprehension that they would not get justice from the Court.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing before the District Judge, he took notice of the submission made by the counsel for the accused/petitioner to the effect that learned Presiding Officer was himself inclined to transfer the case and without assigning any reason, the file was sent back to the same ASJ. The said request of the petitioner was, however, rejected vide order dated 23.3.2010 on the ground that vague and general allegations had been made in the application for transfer and that transfer of a case from one court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the litigant as the same in effect casts doubt on the integrity, competence and reputation of the concerned Judge. The District Judge also took notice of the fact that the counsel for the accused/petitioner had stated before the ASJ that he had no complaint against any one and the trial may be continued before the same Court but while the cross- examination of PW-3 was going on, another counsel namely, Mr. Anwar Ahmed Siddiqui appeared in the Court and made a statement that the accused had apprehension that they would not get justice from the Court. As a result, the application of the petitioners for transfer of case was dismissed.