PRAGNABEN MAHESHBHAI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and challenged the order passed by learned Sessions Judge Junagadh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 159/06 on 29.4.06 transferring all the matters pending between the parties from the Court of JMFC, Visavadar to the Court of 5th Joint Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Junagadh.

(2.) The applicant is the wife of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 is her father in law and respondent No. 4 is her mother in law, respondent No. 5 is her sister in law. On the basis of complaint filed by the applicant before Visavadar police station for the offence punishable under section 498 A, 420, 406 I.P Code and section 3,7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, offence was registered and investigation was started. On completion of investigation charge sheet was laid before the court of JMFC for the aforesaid offences and criminal case NO. 15/97 came to be registered by the Court. According to the applicant the respondents have made efforts to delay the proceedings but the court was strict in granting adjournments on frivolous grounds which was disliked by the respondents and their advocates. The court started recording of evidence by recording examination in chief of the applicant and the matter was kept for cross-examination on 12.4.06 but the respondent No. 2 tried to interfere with the judicial process. Therefore learned Magistrate requested him not to interfere with the judicial process. The respondents wanted to avoid the hearing. Therefore Criminal Misc. Application No. 159/06 was filed by the respondent No. 2 to 5 for transfer of the case, before Learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh contending that alleged offence was not committed at Visavadar, therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence but the said application was rejected by the Court and therefore Special Criminal Application No. 623/07 was filed before the High Court; and thereafter the case was referred to permanent Lok Adalat by the High Court that the same was returned to the Court as the complainant did not appear and the same was pending before the High Court; that in March 2006 the case was fixed for hearing but the application for adjournment was made as the Special Criminal Application was pending before the High Court; thereafter the case was fixed on 12.4.06 and the respondents applied for adjournment giving details about the case pending before the High Court but the learned Magistrate got enraged and returned the application and instructed them to give simple application, therefore, simple application for adjournment was given; that despite that the Court recorded disposition of the complainant; that respondent No. 2 and his advocate requested the Court but learned Magistrate insulted them; that normally a bench for accused is being kept in frontside so that they can hear recoding of evidence but respondent No. 2 was asked to sit on the back side and when junior advocate asked respondent No. 2 to sit at that place, Learned Magistrate got enraged, and scolded his advocate and also asked for his explanation; that the Court also informed the advocate that he was interfering with the administration of justice and a complaint would be filed against him, therefore, the advocate tendered apology, despite that learned magistrate insulted him and told him to cross-examine the witness and informed that otherwise exemption granted to the respondent No. 2,4, and 5 would be cancelled but the case was adjourned when application was submitted; that the complainant and her advocate were encouraged on account of conduct of learned magistrate and complainant and her father gave threats to respondent No 2 after the case was adjourned and therefore they apprehend that false cases would be filed against them; that considering the conduct of learned magistrate they feel that they would not get fair trial on account of the incident therefore the case is required to be transferred to some other Court.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge called for remarks of concerned Magistrate and was pleased to allow the application of transfer by his order dated 29.6.06 and therefore this Revision Application has been filed challenging the order of transfer of all the cases between the parties.