ARUNA VYAS Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Badrilal Vyas non-petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint against petitioners & non petitioners No. 3 to 5 which is pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan. This is a criminal case No. 337/80, u/s 406 I.P.C, Shri Soni, learned counsel for the applicant petitioner argued that the complainant Badrilal non- petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner Smt. Aruna & after filing the complaint N. P. No. 1 Bbdrilal is threatening Smt. Aruna petitioner & she had apprehension of danger to her life. During argument, learned counsel referred to the letters annexures 7, 9 and 10. Ann. 9 and 10 are letters written by Badrilal non-petitioner No. 1 to Smt. Aruna. Ann. 7 is the letter written by Badrilal, non-petitioner No. 1 to one Chhipaji who is landlord of the house in which Smt. Aruna resides at Kota. After referring certain portions of these letters it was argued that Badrilal; N. P. No. 1 is threatening Smt. Aruna with dire consequences & if she comes on the dates at Kapasan in court she apprehend that she will be put to harm. It was also argued that on 3-10-1985, the date fixed in the complaint case at Kapasan. when Smt. Aruna appeared and was in Kapasan. Badrilal N. P. No. 1 threatened her and a report was lodged by Smt. Aruna at police station Kapasan, The F. I. R. of that report is Ann. 13. So by showing all these documents it was argued that it is unsafe for Smt. Aruna to come to Kapasan and attend the dates in the complaint filed by non-petition No. 1 Badrilal. According to him the case may be transferred to any other district except Chitt orgarh distt.

(2.) I have considered the arguments and perused the letters. Anh. 7 is addressed to Chhipaji who is the alleged landlord and letter is of 26-1-81. Ann. 9 is addressed to Smt. Aruna but it is undated. Ann. 10 is also addressed to Smt. Aruna which is of 7-3-84. The F. I. R. was lodged on 3-10-1685. There is no matter on the record to show that Badrilal N, P. No. 1 has further given threatening letters or has said threatening words to Smt. Aruna after 3-10-85. If Smt. Aruna feels that she is unsafe, the matter may be reported to the police against Badrilal and he can be bound down by the police. On mere apprehension the cases are not to be transferred from one district to another. Even if she feels any unsafety she can move to authorities, to police Department, even to the court for taking action against Badrilal N. P. No. 1. But this is no ground that the case be transferred from Kapasan Chittorgarh district to any other district.

(3.) I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not feel it sufficient ground to transfer the case from Kapasan to another district. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.