Smt. Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr  Insc 281 (14
C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6163 of 2004 [With Transfer Petition (Crl.)
No. 71 of 2005 and Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 75 of 2005] Lokeshwar Singh
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2005 and Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 75
These are unfortunate litigations amongst the most intimate family members
who are intensely involved in inter se civil, criminal and revenue litigations
in various courts in different States.
These two transfer petitions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure [for short, "Cr.P.C."] have been filed by the petitioner
seeking transfer of case No. 3045/2004 titled as State of U.P. v. Parminder
Kaur under Sections 446, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for
short, "IPC"] and Case No. 1434/2004 under Sections 466, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar
Pradesh, to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
or to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are set out
as under:- Smt. Parminder Kaur, petitioner herein, and her husband Lt. Col.
Hargobind Singh (Retd.) are aged persons.
They are not keeping good health and are suffering from various diseases.
They have got four daughters but no son.
The daughters are settled in the United
States of America [USA].
The petitioner and her husband because of their old age and ill-health are
almost dependent on their daughters and are residing with them in USA
for getting medical treatment and care. Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh is a retired
Army Officer. While in service, he purchased some agricultural land in village
Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. He appointed his
younger brother Har Gur Saran Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, as his Attorney
vide Power of Attorney dated 3rd April,
1970 authorising him to look after, maintain and deal with his
property. Smt. Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, got some land in the
same village and she too appointed respondent No. 2 as her Attorney on 27th March, 1991. It is alleged in
these petitions that after lapse of some time the husband of the petitioner
found the conduct of respondent No.
2 unfair and dishonest therefore, on 29.07.1975 he revoked the Power of
Attorney given to respondent No. 2. In spite of the revocation of Power of
Attorney, respondent No. 2 transferred the land of the husband of the
petitioner by registered sale deed in favour of his relatives on 07th January, 1996 and 10th January, 1996 respectively. On
the basis of those sale deeds, names of the relatives of respondent No. 2 were
recorded in the Revenue records by obtaining mutation orders dated 07th March,
1996 recorded by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur in Mutation Record Nos. 228-B of 1996
and 229-B of 1996. According to the petitioner, the mutation orders were
obtained fraudulently and at the back of the petitioner's husband by respondent
No. 2. Smt. Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, also revoked her Power
of Attorney and asked respondent No. 2 not to deal with her land any more in
any manner. But irrespective of the revocation of the said Power of Attorney,
respondent No. 2 transferred her land in the name of his daughter Namrata
Chandi and other near relatives by registered sale deed dated 03rd July, 1991
and obtained mutation order dated 30th August, 1991 of the Tehsildar, Bilaspur,
recorded in Mutation Case No. 8-M of 1991.
The husband of the petitioner then appointed the petitioner as his Attorney
by executing Power of Attorney dated 25th
September, 1997 in her favour authorizing her to deal with his land
at village Behait. Similarly, Smt. Amrinder Kaur appointed the petitioner as
her Power of Attorney executed on 4th
February, 2000 with regard to her land.
The case of the petitioner is that when she came to know about the
transactions made by respondent No. 2 and mutation orders recorded by the
Tehsildar, the petitioner filed three suits bearing Original Case Nos.
266/2002, 267/2002 and 268/2002 for declaration and permanent injunction inter
alia challenging the legality and validity of the sale deeds in the trial court
at Rampur. Simultaneously, on 27th May, 2002 the petitioner filed three
revision applications [being Revision Application Nos. 38/2001-2002,
39/2001-2002 and 40/2001- 2002] on behalf of her husband and daughter before
the Collector, Rampur, for setting aside the mutation order dated 07th March,
1996 and order dated 30th August, 1991. The Collector, Rampur,
dismissed all the three revision applications by order dated 16th October, 2002 on the sole
ground of delay of 6-11 years in challenging the impugned mutation orders of
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred three Civil Writ Petition Nos.
4470/2003, 4472/2003 and 4475/2003 before the High Court of Judicature at
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court in view of the pendency of
the civil suits in the civil court.
The petitioner alleges in these proceedings that after instituting the three
civil suits in the trial court, she and her husband received serious threats to
their lives from respondent No.2. She alleges that respondent No. 2 even hired
some anti-social persons directing them to chase the petitioner when she had
gone to Rampur and other places.
The petitioner stated that respondent No. 2 has made her life and life of
her husband miserable and he is bent upon to harm them physically and mentally.
Therefore, on 25th August, 2003
the petitioner filed Transfer Petition Nos. 564, 565 and 568 of 2003 in this
Court praying for transfer of civil suits from the Court of Civil Judge,
Uttar Pradesh, to Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
In the meantime, as a counter blast, respondent No. 2 filed an
application/complaint dated 25th September 1996 before the Superintendent of
Police, Rampur, and obtained an order of registration of false and fabricated
case FIR No. 160 dated 17th October, 2003 in Police Station, Bilaspur, District
Rampur, under Sections 463, 468, 420 of IPC on the allegations that during
hearing of revision applications filed by the petitioner against the mutation
orders before the Collector and an application for condonation of delay in
filing the said revision petitions, the Collector had noticed that the dates of
applications submitted for obtaining copies of orders of mutations recorded by
Tehsildar, Bilaspur, were interpolated for 09 May, 2002 as 18 May, 2002. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur
on 10th October, 2003
issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. On 19th December, 2003, respondent No. 2 and some
police personnel accompanying him forcibly dragged the petitioner from
and she was brought to Rampur in a
private vehicle. On 20th December,
2003, she was produced in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rampur. She filed bail
application which came to be rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23rd December, 2003. In the
meantime, the police filed charge sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate against the petitioner on 22nd
December, 2003 under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, the
subject matter of Case No. 1434/2004. However, on 24th December, 2003 the petitioner was released on bail
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rampur.
Again, on 27th February, 2004
the respondent No. 2 filed one more complaint making similar allegations and
the police under the influence of respondent No. 2 registered another FIR under
Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner. On the basis
of the said charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur,
on 13th July, 2004 took
cognizance of Case No. 3045/2004 against the petitioner. On 25th May, 2004/3rd June, 2004, the petitioner
filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4313 of 2004 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing Case No. 1434/2004 before the High Court of Judicature at
which, according to the petitioner, is still pending.
This Court vide order dated 9th August, 2004 transferred Original Case No.
268/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind Singh through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v.
Prabhjot Singh & Ors., Original Case No. 266/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind
Singh through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v. Har Gur Saran Singh & Ors.
and Original Case No. 267/2002 titled as Smt.
Amrinder Kaur through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v. Har Gur Saran Singh
& Ors. pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur,
Uttar Pradesh, to the District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
who was requested to either try the proceedings himself or to make over the
same for trial to any other court of competent jurisdiction.
The petitioner on the premises above-said filed these transfer petitions
inter alia contending that she is an ailing old woman of 72 years of age and
needs medical and physical care and in such conditions, it is very difficult
for her to undertake tiring journey from Chandigarh or from Delhi to the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to defend the cases pending against her.
The petitioner's husband is also an old and ailing person of 76 years of age
who is wholly dependent on his daughters and is residing with them in USA.
There is no other male member in the family of the petitioner who would
accompany her to Rampur. The police
of Rampur is in collusion with
respondent No. 2 who is a nefarious litigant and in such circumstances no fair
trial is possible from the court at Rampur.
The civil suits are pending in Delhi and therefore, the criminal cases lodged
by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at Rampur shall also be transferred
to Delhi or Chandigarh in the interest of justice and as the petitioner's life
would be in danger if she goes to Rampur to appear in the court during the
trial of the cases in view of an open threat extended to her life by respondent
In reply to the transfer applications, respondent No. 2 has given a detailed
background of the family history of the parties involved in these cases. In
substance, his defence is that his elder brother Lt. Col. (Retd.) Hargobind
Singh, husband of the petitioner, purchased 23 acres of land in Revenue Estate
of village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. His brother
executed General Power of Attorney dated 3rd
April, 1970 duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Saugor
(Madhya Pradesh), appointing and constituting respondent No. 2 as a General
Attorney authorizing him to cultivate, look after and deal with his
agricultural land. Out of 23 acres of land, the petitioner's husband had gifted
6 acres of land to his adopted daughter Smt. Amrinder Kaur in the year 1979.
Smt. Amrinder Kaur also appointed respondent No.2 as her Attorney with effect
from 27th March, 1991. He
stated that as an obedient brother and as an affectionate uncle of Smt.
Amrinder Kaur he cultivated, protected and supervised the landed property of
his brother and niece to the best of his ability and from time to time he
remitted the profits derived from their landed property to them. He submitted
that he paid the land revenue of the lands and also protected the lands from
being acquired by the State Government under the Provisions of U.P.
Agricultural Land Ceiling Act. He averred that since the year 1987 the
petitioner and her husband are citizens of USA
and they are persons of means and status whereas, on the other hand, he is a
marginal/poor farmer holding meagre agricultural land.
He pleaded that in the year 1990, the petitioner's husband and his daughter
asked him to get some portions of their lands sold and transferred, but at that
point of time there were no buyers readily available in the market due to
terrorist activities prevailing in the area. However, later on as per the
instructions of Smt. Amrinder Kaur, he sold 06 acres of her land in favour of
his daughter Smt. Namrata Chandi and Col.
Sarabjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1991 and consequently, the land was mutated in
their names in the revenue records. Similarly, on the instructions of
petitioner's husband he sold 9 acres of land by a registered sale deed dated
7th January, 1996 in favour of Prabodh Singh and Balbir Singh and handed over
the possession of the land bearing Khata No. 1/5 to them. Another piece of land
measuring 5.36 acres owned by the husband of the petitioner was also sold by
registered sale deed dated 10th
January, 1996 to Manjit Singh and Balbir Singh. Thus, as an
Attorney of petitioner's husband and daughter and on their express instructions
he sold and transferred their agricultural land measuring 20.36 acres to the
bona fide purchasers and the amounts of sale consideration were duly remitted
by bank drafts to both the owners without any delay on his part.
It is his case that the petitioner came to India
in the year 2002 and by that time the prices of land shot up in and around the
village where the agricultural lands are situated.
He stated that the petitioner is actuated with lust and greed for money and
hence compelled him to get more money from the above named bona fide purchasers
who are the common relatives of both of them. He stated that he tried his best
to persuade the petitioner not to raise any demand for more money but she
remained adamant and on his refusal to accede to her illegal demand, the
petitioner unblemishably extended threat to teach him a lesson. She with a mala
fide and dishonest intention filed civil suits for cancellation of the sale
deeds in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rampur,
which later were on transferred by this Court to the court in Delhi.
He stated that the petitioner interpolated the dates in the certified copies
issued from the revenue records, Rampur,
with a mala fide intention to get delay of more than eleven years condoned from
the Collector against the order of Tehsildar, Rampur.
She submitted forged and fabricated documents in the civil court. He has
admitted having filed two criminal cases against the petitioner in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur,
in which she was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Track Court, Rampur.
Further, he stated in his counter affidavit that he and his elder brother
Lt. Col. (Retd.) Hargobind singh are joint owners of House No. 1394, Sector
33-C at Chandigarh in equal shares
as per family settlement dated 10th
November, 1970. The petitioner with a mala fide intention to grab
the share of respondent No. 2, clandestinely entered into an agreement of sale
of that house with one Pritam Kaur Sekhon, resident of 3015, Sector 19-D,
Chandigarh, and received Rs. 1,00,000/- from her as advance money. Subsequent
to the first agreement, the petitioner again entered into second agreement with
regard to the same property with Charan Jiv Singh and Mrs. Hariti Singh,
resident of House No. 324, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, and received Rs. 5,00,000/-
from them as earnest money and obtained No Objection Certificate [NOC] in
favour of the purchasers from the Estate Office, Chandigarh.
The petitioner after receiving the earnest money again backed out from the
terms of the agreement and also compelled Charan Jiv Singh and Mrs. Hariti
Singh to file civil and criminal cases against her. They got a public notice
published in a local daily advising the public at large not to enter into any
agreement in regard to the said property as it was purchased by them from the
petitioner. He stated that he came to know about the aforesaid illegal and
nefarious acts of the petitioner regarding the disposal of House No. 1394,
Sector-33 C at Chandigarh. He filed
Civil Suit No.79/2004 against his elder brother for declaration claiming 50 per
cent share in the joint property which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Chandigarh. He stated that both the petitioner as well as her
husband Lt. Col. (Retd.) Hargobind Singh are contesting the said case. The petitioner
has lodged several false complaints in the court at Chandigarh against him and
his son who is serving as Major in the Indian Army. It is his version that he
was granted anticipatory bail by the court in a case registered by the
petitioner vide FIR No.
228 dated 20th July, 2005 of P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh. The petitioner
filed an application dated 24th October, 2005 for cancellation of his bail but
the same was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
He submitted that the petitioner is a lady of means and can very well afford
to defend the case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, whereas
he is a poor farmer and would not be in a position to get the criminal cases
prosecuted against the petitioner at Delhi or Chandigarh because of his
inadequate financial position and being an old man of 65 years of age, he is
unable to bear with the arduous journey of about 400-500 kms. by train from
village Behait to Delhi or Chandigarh if the cases are transferred to either of
In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated and reasserted the
averments made by her in the transfer petitions and denied the counter
allegations made by respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit.
Shri Avadhesh Kumar Vijeta working as C.O., Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar
Pradesh, in his affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, states
that the FIR dated 17.10.2003 came to be registered against the petitioner at
the instance of respondent No.2 and after completion of the investigation
charge sheet was laid before the trial court. He stated that the petitioner had
attended the proceedings of the criminal cases before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rampur and she has not lodged any complaint with the police against
respondent No.2 for extending threats to her life or causing any physical harm
to her. He stated that if the criminal cases are transferred to the courts of
other States, it would result in undue delay in the disposal of the cases and
the State Government would also incur additional and unnecessary expenditure of
the official witnesses, who will have to undertake their journey from Rampur to
other places outside the State.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State of U.P. Respondent No.2, who was present, argued as a party in-person
and canvassed all possible contentions in opposition to the transfer petitions.
The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if
the petitioner has to go to Rampur to attend the proceedings in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, her safety would be in danger or she apprehends
physical harm to her from respondent No.2 or anti-social elements. In our view,
this is too nebulous a ground for transferring the cases from the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at
Delhi or Chandigarh. The petitioner has not substantiated her apprehension of
threat or bodily harm or intimidation from respondent No. 2 or other
anti-social elements as alleged by her. She has been going to Rampur in the
past and attended the court proceedings before Magistrate and Collector but no
untoward incident was ever brought to the notice of the police or the Chief
Judicial Magistrate by her against respondent No.2 If the petitioner fears any
sort of threat to her life, she can report the matter to the police or the
Court who, in its turn, can after considering the needs of the situation, pass
orders according to law including appropriate directions for police protection.
The next plea of illness of the petitioner is not supported by medical
evidence. The petitioner has been travelling all the way from USA to India and
going to Rampur to look after the landed property of her husband and daughter
as their Attorney. She has been going and attending the cases in the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad and in the civil court at Delhi pending inter se the
petitioner and respondent No.2.
The petitioner and respondent No.2, both practically seem to be of the same
age group. The petitioner has also filed criminal case against respondent No.2
at Chandigarh and he has been attending the proceedings of the said case going
all the way from Rampur and covering a distance of about 500 kms. as averred by
him in his counter affidavit.
The petitioner is a person of means and it will not be difficult for her to
attend the hearing of the criminal cases pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
The comparative inconvenience of the litigant parties are not the only
criterion for transferring the cases from one State to another State, but the
Court has to visualize the comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be
caused to the witnesses besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer
in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and
non-official witnesses who will have to travel by train from Rampur to Delhi or
Chandigarh, as the case may be, for attending the court proceedings if the
cases are ordered to be transferred to transferee court. During the course of
the hearing of these petitions, we are told that the distance between Rampur
and Delhi is about 400-500 kms. We cannot loose sight of one more factor viz.,
that the criminal courts situated at Delhi or Chandigarh are already
over-burdened with the pendency of the cases and it would not be in the
interest of the litigating parties as well as in the interest of justice to add
more cases to the dockets of the transferee courts to keep the trial of those
cases pending for decades. In the circumstances, on the basis of vague and
unfounded allegations made by the petitioner in the transfer applications
against the respondent, we are not persuaded to accept the prayer of the
petitioner for transferring the trial of Case Nos.3045/2004 and 1434/2004
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh,
either to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
or to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
In the result, for the above-said reasons, these transfer petitions are
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6163 of 2004:
This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 23rd November, 2004 recorded by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
4290/2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioner Smt.
Parminder Kaur has been directed to deposit the passport in terms of the
order dated 24th December, 2003 within a week from the date of the order in the
The petitioner was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.2, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 24th December, 2003, on the
conditions that she will not leave India till the conclusion of the proceedings
in Case Crime No.390 of 2003 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 466, 468, 420 IPC pertaining to P.S.
Bilaspur, District Rampur. The passport of the petitioner was also got
deposited. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4290 of
2004 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
inter alia praying that the conditions so imposed by the court below may be
removed so as to enable her to attend her old and ailing husband who is getting
medical treatment in USA
under the care of his daughters. The High Court vide order dated 03rd June,
2004, was pleased to suspend the operation of conditions so imposed for the
period of two months and directed the release of passport of the petitioner. On
0th August, 2004, three weeks' further time was extended and the said period
had expired on 27th August, 2004,
when it was obligatory and mandatory for the petitioner to have deposited the
passport as per the order of the Court.
It appears that respondent No.2 herein moved the Criminal Miscellaneous
Clarification Application No.204282 of 2004 in the High Court of Judicature at
with a prayer that as the petitioner has not complied with the order of the
court, she be directed to deposit the passport and necessary consequential
action shall be taken against her.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court observed in the order dated 23rd
November, 2004, impugned in this petition, as under:
". Since the applicant is an old and ailing lady of 75 years age it
appears that under some misunderstanding, she could not deposit the passport.
So I am not inclined to pass any adverse order against her. She is directed to
deposit the passport in the trial court within a week from today.
With these observations, the modification application is disposed of."
It is this order which is under challenge before us.
During the hearing of the Special Leave Petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions, submitted before us that the petitioner has
complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd November, 2004, and deposited
her passport in the trial court within the stipulated period.
In view of the subsequent development, this Special Leave Petition does not
survive and it stands disposed of having rendered infructuous.