- (1.) 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.
(2.) These two transfer petitions u/s. 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/s. Parminder Kaur under Ss. 446, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "IPC"] and Case No. 1434/2004 under Ss. 466, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 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.
(3.) The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are set out as under:- 1. 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 3.04.1970 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 27.03.1991. 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 07.01.1996 and 10.01.1996 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 07.03.1996 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 03.07.1991 and obtained mutation order dated 30.08.1991 of the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, recorded in Mutation Case No. 8-M of 1991. 2. The husband of the petitioner then appointed the petitioner as his Attorney by executing Power of Attorney dated 25.09.1997 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 4.02.2000 with regard to her land. 3. 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 27.05.2002 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 07.03.1996 and order dated 30.08.1991. The Collector, Rampur, dismissed all the three revision applications by order dated 16.10.2002 on the sole ground of delay of 6-11 years in challenging the impugned mutation orders of the Tehsildar. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred three Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4470/2003, 4472/2003 and 4475/2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court in view of the pendency of the civil suits in the civil court. 5. 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 25.08.2003 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, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, to Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In the meantime, as a counter blast, respondent No. 2 filed an application/complaint dated 25.09.1996 before the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, and obtained an order of registration of false and fabricated case FIR No. 160 dated 17.10.2003 in Police Station, Bilaspur, District Rampur, under Ss. 463, 468, 420 of the Indian Penal Code 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 09.05.2002 as 18.05.2002. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 10.10.2003 issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. On 19.12.2003, respondent No. 2 and some police personnel accompanying him forcibly dragged the petitioner from Chandigarh and she was brought to Rampur in a private vehicle. On 20.12.2003, 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 23.12.2003. In the meantime, the police filed charge sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner on 22.12.2003 under Ss. 466, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the subject matter of Case No. 1434/2004. However, on 24.12.2003 the petitioner was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rampur. 6. Again, on 27.02.2004 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 Ss. 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. On the basis of the said charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, on 13.07.2004 took cognizance of Case No. 3045/2004 against the petitioner. On 25.05.2004/3.06.2004, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4313 of 2004 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Case No. 1434/2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which, according to the petitioner, is still pending. 7. This Court vide order dated 9.08.2004 transferred Original Case No. 268/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind Singh through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur V/s. Prabhjot Singh & Ors., Original Case No. 266/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind Singh through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur V/s. Har Gur Saran Singh & Ors., and Original Case No. 267/2002 titled as Smt. Amrinder Kaur through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur V/s. 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. 8. 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 No. 2. 9. 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 3.04.1970 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 27.03.1991. 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 3.07.1991 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 7.01.1996 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 10.01.1996 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.;