LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Munirathnam (Scientist)     02 February 2010

Transfer of Criminal case

Dear All,

 

I have filed a criminal case on my wife, and her parents U/s of 506, 384, 312, 500 and 120B of IPC at Bangalore. Preior to this my wife filed 498A on me and my family members at Hyderabad.

 

No w my wife approached Supreme Court seeking for transfer of the case registered by me from Bangalore to Hyderabad.

The following grounds are stated:

 

  1. Case is counter blast to the registered case by wife.
  2. One case is running on husband and the registered case by the husband also pointing the same caus of action, hence both should be tried at Hyderabad along wiht the registered case on Husband.
  3. Husband registered case is without jurisdiction.
  4. Wife will suffer to travel and thereis damger to wife's life.

 

Some back ground facts:

 

  1. Wife and husband lived at Bangalore since marrigae and as per wife dowry case, no allegation happened at Hyderabad, everything happened at Bangalore. Still hyderabad police filed charge sheet in Hyderabad.
  2. Hyderabad police did not visit crime place , Bangalore for investigation, husband approached A.P High Court to quash on the grond that, no jurisdiction, police did not investigate the case at crime place. Also, Husband parents did not live at Bnagalore even single day of entire matrimonial life (22 days).
  3. As per husband complaint on wife and her parents, case U/s 506,384, 312, 500 and 102B happened at Bangalore and partly happened at Hyderabad.
  4. Witnesses of the case are from Bangalore and they are living at Bangalore.

What are the grounds that Supreme Court consider while trasfering the criminal cases from one state to naother state.

 

Does above wife grounds attracts SC to transfer the case ...



Learning

 4 Replies

RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE (LAWYER AT BUDHIRAJA & ASSOCIATES SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)     02 February 2010

WILL U PLZ CALL ME? MY NO. IS 9871158578

Munirathnam (Scientist)     02 February 2010

Dear All,

 

The counter grounds in this case could be as below. Please send your comments.

 

  1. Humbly submit that respondent and petitioner lived at Bangalore and the alleged crime happened in the jurisdiction of IInd MM Court, Bangalore City, Karnataka. Even as per petitioner version both the petitioner and the respondent lived at Bangalore and never mentioned that both lived other than Bangalore jurisdiction.
 
  1.  Transfer of case causes threat to life of the respondent and the witnesses of the case. The threats of the petitioner’s relatives already caused death of the respondent’s brother-in-law, accused in the 498A IPC case registered by petitioner.
 
  1. The case is under investigation stage. Prosecution does not have any concern in investigating the case and witnesses of the case do not have any issues with police in giving their statements being they are capable of speaking Kannada fluently.  Also the witnesses of the case and the respondent are good English speaking people to understand court proceedings even in English.
 
  1. Respondent approached the Honorable High Court of Andrapradesh to quash the proceedings on the case U/s 498A IPC by the petitioner in IX MM Court, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, A.P with the below grounds:
 
    1. Kukatpally PS has no jurisdiction to file charge sheet in Ld. IX MM Court, Cyberabad, being alleged allegations happened at Bangalore, Karnataka.
 
    1. No investigation is carried out at alleged crime taken place, i.e., Bangalore by the Kukatpally Police. Also Kukatpally police refused to collect the documentary evidences requested by the respondent.
 
    1. Respondent’s relatives did not live with petitioner’s family and Bangalore to cause physical harassment. Respondent’s parents lived at their native place in A.P while and respondent’s sister, married and have school going child at her matrimonial home in A.P while petitioner was with respondent at Bangalore.
 
    1. Police failed to transfer the registered case to Bangalore PS for investigation.
 
    1. Police failed to investigate properly and failed to transfer the case to the concern jurisdictional PS at Bangalore.
 
  1. Respondent is law obeying person and never involved in any criminal activities, never did harm to anybody and also submit that respondent served our honorable country as a scientific officer in India’s strategic programs.
 
  1. All the said allegations on respondent and his family are false. The evidence list which provides the information that respondent is innocent is submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and DCP sent reply to the respondent is that the evidences provide information that said allegations in the registered case are false and advised to file discharge petition in the court.
 
  1. Respondent requested information related to the registered case through the Right To Information Act-2005 by the petitioner and SHO Kukatpally, denied to supply information. SHO Kukatapply admitted in his RTI reply to the respondent that no investigation is carried at the matrimonial home place, Bangalore.
 
  1. Respondent requested the Kukatpally police to investigate the matter on petitioner’s pregnancy, which was not aborted on May-20th 2008 as alleged in the case by the petitioner. Police refused to investigate and replied through RTI reply; saying that the pregnancy allegation does not attract the 498A IPC section, still included the pregnancy abortion allegations in the charge sheet with out investigation.
 
  1.  Even as per petitioners complaint and the police charge sheet it is never said that there is danger to life of the petitioner by the respondent. Saying there is threat to life of the petitioner from respondent in this petition is absurd.
 
Ref Judgments:
  1. Criminal case between Menaka Gandhi and.Govt of India, Mumbai case.
  2. Jayendra Saraswati Vs. Sate Tamilnadu, Criminal case transfer petition.
  3. Many Supreme Court of India judgments related to transfer of 498A IPC cases link at:  

 

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     03 February 2010

The opinion of Munirathnam is accurate.

Raj (fr)     15 July 2013

Dear Sri Munirathnam,

What ultimately happened to the criminal case you filed against your wife, and her parents U/s of 506, 384, 312, 500 and 120B of IPC at Bangalore. Preior to this my wife filed 498A on me and my family members at Hyderabad.What happened after your wife approached Supreme Court seeking for transfer of the case registered by me from Bangalore to Hyderabad.

Did it got transfered to her place or remained at your place only.

Please share.

Rgds,

Raj


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query