MUMTAZ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the transfer of the case titled State of H.P. Vs. Tanvir Sheikh and others, arising out of FIR No. 411 of 2016, dtd. 27/12/2016, from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. to the Court at Nalagarh. It has been asserted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 22/2/2014. Differences arose between the parties and the petitioner filed an FIR No. 411, dtd. 27/12/2016, under Sec. 498-A of IPC. The petitioner is residing in her paternal home. Her husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, which is still pending. A civil suit for injunction was also filed by respondent no. 4 as a counterblast to the FIR. The petitioner filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner is a struggling Advocate. She has no source of income. Respondent No.2 is a well-settled Lawyer having sufficient income. The petitioner had to file a petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. at District Court, Mohali. All the dowry articles of the petitioner are with the respondents. She filed a petition at Sunam under the Domestic Violence Act. The police prepared the challan. The petitioner went to the Court where respondent no. 2 stated that nothing would happen to him as the Advocates of Paonta Sahib Bar Association are his friends. He also stated that his cases are not likely to be taken in future. 10-15 Advocates, who were friends of respondent no. 2 appeared on behalf of the respondents to put pressure upon the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to attend the Court premises and she apprehends a harm to her. Hence, the petition.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a reply by respondent no. 1, taking preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that FIR No. 411/2016 was registered at the instance of the petitioner at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. Challan has been submitted to the Court and is listed for consideration on charge. There is no merit in the petition; hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.

(3.) A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed. No separate reply was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4.