J M DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer by the opposite party in case Smt. Neeta Datta versus J. M. Dutta under Section 125, CrPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mahaban, Mathura.

(2.) THE regard taken in the application is that the applicant reasonably apprehends that if he goes to Mathura to contest the case, he will be murdered. For this, the applicant has placed reliance on several threatening letters to that effect, which according to the affidavit filed by him, he has received by post. It is suggested in the affidavit that these letters have originated from sources sympathetic to opposite party No. 3, his wife. In the counter-affidavit, the opposite party No. 3 has stated that the letters have been manufactured by the applicant. She has sworn the relevant paragraph on personal knowledge, which is absurd. Because it is unthinkable that the applicant should have manufactured these letters in the presence or within the sight of opposite party No. 3, as her assertion about personal knowledge would imply. Moreover, the original letters were produced for the inspection of the Court and were even shown to the Counsel for the opposite party. THEre is nothing to suspect that they have been manipulated by the applicant of anyone else at his instance. In the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the apprehensions of the applicant are fair and reasonable. In this view, tikis application must be allowed. But, considering the fact, as the learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 put it and without any contradiction from the other side, that the transfer of the case outside Mathura would necessarily put opposite party No. 3 to an extra expense, which she can ill-afford on account of her poverty, it will be just and fair if the applicant is simultaneously asked to pay her a sum of Rs. 200/- to meet this extra expense.