V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1, Parmod Bajaj was married to Smt. Anuradha daughter, of Vasudev Behl (respondent No. 2 herein). Unfortunately, the spouses could not adjust with each other and that led to initiation of many proceedings, both civil and criminal, between them. The present petition has been filed by Parmod Bajaj and his mother, Sushila Bajaj, for transfer of complaint titled as Vasdev v. Sushila Bajaj etc. under Section 500 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. pending in the court of Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Amritsar, to any other court of competent jurisdiction outside the State of Punjab, on the ground that respondent No.2, father of Anuradha, is a very senior practicing Advocate on criminal side in District Courts at Amritsar. His son, Darling Behl too is practicing as an Advocate there. The allegations made in this petition are that when the petitioners were summoned in the aforesaid complaint case, respondent No. 2 produced a report regarding refusal to receive summons. when the petitioners came to know of this, they moved as petition for quashing of the complaint as well as proceedings initiated thereon. When petition for quashment (Crl. Misc. No. 6643-M of 1994) came up for hearing before this Court on 2.5.1994, a direction was issued to the Judicial Magistrate at Amritsar, to admit the petitioners to bail on their appearance before him, and thereafter exempt their personal appearance, on giving of an undertaking from the Advocate representing them to the effect that he would appear on behalf of the petitioners and that the petitioners would have no objection to the proceedings conducted in their absence. Petitioners have further alleged that in pursuance of orders dated 2.5.1994 of this Court, they proceeded to Amritsar on 20.5.1994 for presenting themselves before the Judicial Magistrate, so as to seek bail to get an order for exemption from personal appearance, but on their reaching near the court-compound, they found the atmosphere there as surcharging. None the lawyers agreed to accept their brief, and on account of this, petitioners found themselves completely handicapped and ultimately, had no alternative except to return back from Amritsar. Petitioners, thus, apprehend that a fair and impartial enquiry trial cannot be held in the Court at Amritsar. Petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the criminal complaint titled as "Vasdev v. Sushila Bajaj etc." pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, may be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction outside the State of Punjab.
(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the parties to the marriage, i.e. Parmod Bajaj and his wife, Anuradha, have reconciled and presently living together. The differences are now only with the father of Smt. Anuradha. Respondent No. 2 who argued the case in person, contended that previous to this case, in another case, petitioners were represented by some counsel, but there is no averment in this petition that the said counsel has refused to accept the brief and therefore, in absence of such an averment, the prayer for transfer of the case deserves to be declined. I am not prepared to accept this argument of respondent No. 2 The apprehension of the petitioners is not unfounded. When the summons were issued for the service of the petitioners, the petitioners had to approach this Court with an allegation that a false report regarding refusal to accept summons has been procured in order to harass the petitioners. Accepting their contention, this court gave a direction to the Judicial Magistrate to admit the petitioners to bail and exempt their personal appearance on certain undertaking to be given by their counsel. More so, it has not been denied at the Bar that respondent No. 2 is a senior counsel, practising on criminal side at District Court, Amritsar, and on this score too, there is a justifiable reason for the petitioners to apprehend that they may not got proper assistance of a lawyer at Amritsar, resulting in denial of fair and impartial enquiry/trial. Thus, I am of the view that this case deserves to be transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the criminal complaint, titled as "Vasdev v. Sushila Bajaj etc." pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Amritsar, shall stand transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The operation of order dated 2.5.1994 vide which personal appearance of the petitioners was exempted and they were ordered to be represented by their counsel in their absence, shall continue during the pendency of this complaint. The complainant, respondent No.2, who is a busy Advocate, shall also be entitled to be represented through a counsel and his personal appearance shall not be insisted upon.;