Gurpreet
Kaur @ Rinky Vs. Vipin Kumar Gupta [2007] Insc 1111 (2 November 2007)
K.G.
Balakrishnan & R.V. Raveendran & V.S. Sirpurkar
O R D
E R TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2007 K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI, The
petitioner claims that the respondent was her mother's counsel in a number of
matrimonial and maintenance cases filed by her mother against her father. She
alleges that she is in her twenties and engaged to one Parminder Singh. She
claims that the respondent had advised the petitioner to file a petition under
section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act against her father,
seeking the expenses of her forthcoming marriage and in that behalf, took
signatures from her on several blank papers. Thereafter, respondent having evil
designs on her started pressurizing her to break off her engagement and marry
him, though he was 48 years of age and already married having two children. The
petitioner and her mother warned the respondent that he should not harbour such
feelings. The respondent became furious and threatened the petitioner that he
would not allow her to live in peace.
2.
According to her, with a view to spoil her marriage prospects, the respondent
filed a frivolous civil suit against the petitioner, her brothers and other
relatives; that in furtherance of his evil designs, he also forged a letter
dated 19.12.2006 purporting to have been authored by the petitioner addressed
to his friends at Mumbai, making defamatory imputations against him, and on
that basis filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate (49th Court),
Mumbai under section 200 Cr.P.C. in January, 2007, praying that the petitioner
be summoned, tried and penalized for the offence of defamation. The learned
Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner in the said case. The
petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of the said criminal
proceedings bearing CC No.6/SS/2007 from the Court of the Special Metropolitan
Magistrate, 47th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai to any court in Delhi. The petitioner contends that
though the respondent resides in Delhi, he has filed the complaint in Mumbai to
put her to hardship, both financially and otherwise as she will be required to
travel all the way to Mumbai and appear in the case on several hearings; that
the respondent may resort to third degree methods in Mumbai; and that he may
harass her by seeking unnecessary adjournments.
3. The
respondent has resisted the petition by filing a counter, alleging that the
petitioner developed intimacy with him and was requesting him to marry her; and
that she had defamed him by writing letters to his friends making false
allegations. He has contended that she will not be put to any hardship as she
can seek exemption from personal appearance in the Mumbai court. According to
him, his main witnesses are at Mumbai and they will not be able to come over to
Delhi if the case is transferred. He also
stated that the apprehensions of petitioner that he will seek unnecessary
adjournments or indulge in any harassment tactics, are without basis. When the
matter came up for hearing today, the respondent who appears in person, also
submitted that the petitioner is now married and is no longer residing in Delhi but is residing in Punjab and therefore, there is no need to
transfer the case to Delhi.
4.
Both sides have made several allegations in regard to the merits. We do not
propose to examine them in this case as the scope of transfer proceedings is
limited.
5. We
are satisfied that petitioner will be put to considerable hardship if she is
required to contest the matter in Mumbai. On the facts and circumstances, the
case deserves to be transferred to Delhi, as requested by the petitioner.
6. We
accordingly allow this petition and direct transfer of CC No.6/SS/2007, titled Vipin
Kumar Gupta vs. Gurpreet Kaur from the Court of the Special Metropolitan
Magistrate (47th Court), Vikhoroli, Mumbai to the court of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who shall either dispose of the case himself or
assign it to any other Magistrate in Delhi.
Back
Pages: 1 2
