BHAWNA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1996 from Seoni to Jabalpur or Indore.

(2.) It is not in dispute that non-applicant No. 2 Vinod Kumar Rai is an advocate practising at Seoni. He is facing trial for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 342, 328 and 506-B Indian Penal Code on the report of applicant No. 1 Ku. Bhavna daughter of applicant No. 2 Madan Babel in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. The Bar Association, Seoni in its general meeting passed a resolution comdemning the act of the police in arresting Vinod Kumar Rai and ill-treating him. A copy of that resolution is Annexure A. This resolution was passed on the complaint of Vinod Kumar Rai. He has filed a Civil Suit under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging that applicant No. 1 Bhavna is his wife. She appeared in that civil suit to contest it. She made an application to the effect that she is not getting a suitable lawyer from Seoni to defend her in the civil suit. The non-applicant No. 2 got the summons issued to her giving her addresses of Ratlam, Mandsour and Jaipur without any order of the Court in that behalf. The applicants have moved for transfer of the civil suit from Seoni and the proceedings in that suit have been stayed by an order of this Court. The non-applicant No. 2 on 5-5-1997 submitted a complaint in writing before the District and Sessions Judge, Seoni against Smt. Indirani Dutta, the Additional Sessions Judge in whose Court the Sessions Case was pending and against Shri Yadunath Vyauhar, Additional Public Prosecutor. A copy of that complaint is Annexure to the application dated 15-7-1997. The sessions case was fixed for hearing on 1-7-1997 but on that date the Public Prosecutor did not appear in the Court. A copy of order-sheet of that date is Annexure D.

(3.) The case of the applicants is that because of the resolution of the Bar Association, Seoni they are not getting a competent and suitable lawyer for protection of their legal rights. The non-applicant No. 2 has created an atmosphere which is not conducive to fair trial. On 7-11-1996 the non-applicant No. 2 met the applicant No. 1 at Indore and threatened her. She has made a complaint to that effect in writing. The non-applicant No. 2 is making complaints against the Judge and the Additional Public Prosecutor to terrorise them. The result is that the Additional Public Prosecutor who was entrusted this case has stopped appearing in the case and the prosecution is not being conducted in right earnest. The applicants are important witnesses in the case and they are afraid of appearing in the case and giving evidence in the absence of a free and detached atmosphere. They have a reasonable apprehension in their mind that justice would be denied to them.