RAJESHREEBEN DHARMENDRABHAI PATADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By this petition under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner is praying for transfer of criminal case No.3360/98 from the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Joint Court) at Khambhat to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Surendranagar.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner married respondent No.2 before about ten years. She has given birth to two children. The husband and in-laws were not happy with the petitioner as she has given birth to female child. The respondents No.2 to 5 started to give all ill treatment to her. The dowry demand has also been made from her. She could not satisfy the demands and as a result of which continued to face all sort of harassment and cruelties. It is stated that during these ten years' married life, she was allowed to stay at matrimonial home only for two to three years and on many occasions she was driven away from matrimonial home. On 9th August, 1998, as what it is stated in paragraph-3 of the petition, the petitioner was put to acute cruelty by the in-laws because of which she got burn injuries to the extent of 27%. The petitioner was not shifted to hospital for treatment by the in-laws and it was only when the brother of the petitioner was informed and he rushed to Khambhat and she was shifted to hospital by him. The brother of the petitioner was informed by the owner of one STD/PCO booth. On 9th August, 1998, the petitioner filed a complaint in Khambhat City Police Station being I C.R. No.0084/98 against the respondents No.2 to 5 under Section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of said complaint, the respondents No.2 to 5 were arrested but later on released on bail by the court. The petitioner was shifted to Surendranagar by her brother where in C.J.hospital, the petitioner got treatment. The petitioner is staying with her brother and father at Surendranagar. At Surendranagar, the petitioner filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. However, it is stated that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not granted any maintenance and her application has been rejected. In the criminal complaint filed by petitioner, investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been submitted in the court where it is registered as Criminal Case No.3360/98 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambhat (Joint Court). The petitioner received summons to remain present in the case on 28.2.2001. It is stated that the petitioner is an unfortunate lady who after a span of ten years' marriage life has got only harassment and cruelty from her in-laws. It is unfortunate what it is stated that she was subjected to all this harassment and cruelty only after giving birth to female child. The husband of the petitioner is an officer in the bank earning more than Rs.10,000/= p.m. The petitioner is a lady without any support except that she is depending wholly on the mercy of brother and father. It is stated that she is not in a position to undertake any travelling to Khambhat to attend the case due to her financial condition. Her brother is also not in a position to go everytime with her to attend the said criminal case. It is beyond the means of the petitioner everytime to go to Khambhat to attend the criminal case. The respondents No.2 to 5 are stated to be well off and earning handsome amount every month. It is also apprehended that in case she goes to attend criminal case at Khambhat, she would face bad weather and may not be in a position to freely give evidence in the criminal case. She has also not been awarded any maintenance by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 has strongly opposed this application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of Mrs.Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and anr. v. Miss Rani Jethamalani reported in AIR 1989 SC 468 and in the case of Jamuna Kanth Jha v. Rudra Kumar Jha and ors. reported in Criminal Law Journal Reports, 1919, Patna, 648. It is contended that the whole case is concocted and manufactured one. It is self inflicted burn injury by the petitioner only with the object and purpose to falsely implicate the respondents No.2 to 5 in the criminal case. It is a case which has been filed by petitioner with an oblique motive and purpose.