Girdhar Gopal vs O.P.Satija and ors.

B.S. Yadav, J.

This application has been filed by Girdhar Gopal for transfer of the criminal complaint filed by him against the present respondent. The case is pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. According to the allegation in the petition, respondent No. 1 Shri O.P. Satija, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle, Ludhiana and his staff are responsible for the maintenance of sewarage, water and other facilities provided by the Public Health Department, whether under occupation of the officers or in the occupation of offices. The petitioner is a partner of firm M/s Berinder Brothers and at the relevant time was carrying on the contract of sanitary fittings in the New Sudhar Ghar, Ludhiana. Differences arose between him and Shri O.P. Satija. On 12.8.1982, Sh. O.P. Satija, along with the remaining respondents, who are his subordinates, reached the place of work, and threatened the petitioner''s son and others and used foul language. Shri O.P. Satija directed the Superintendent of Jail to detain applicant''s son and others workers in the jail. The applicant''s son slipped away, but his workers were detained illegally by the Superintendent of Jail. When the Superintendent of Jail did not release those workers on the request of the petitioner, he sent telegrams to high officers complaining against the conduct of the respondents. The petitioner applied under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuing search warrants against respondents for wrongfully confining his employees. Shri O.P. Satija exploiting his relations with Superintendent of Jail, District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, lodged First Information Report against the petitioner and got him arrested. The petitioner was not produced before the Judicial Magistrate or the Illaqa Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest. On the other hand, the petitioner and his workers were remanded to Police custody for one day by the then Magistrate under the influence of Shri O.P. Satija and the District and Sessions Judge. It was further alleged that the respondents were seen in the company of various judicial officers posted at Ludhiana. They are also coming in contract with the judicial officers in respect of their minor complaints of sewerage and other akin problems and they have been boasting that the petitioner and his men would be severely dealt with and no harm would be caused to them (i.e. respondents). The petitioner has seen Shri O.P. Satija meeting Shri A.S. Sodhi, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his chamber, as well as at his residence. Shri O.P. Satija earlier exercised his influence with the then Magistrate with whom the complaint was pending and the said Magistrate wrote to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for transfer of his case. That on 13.6.83 on which date the case was fixed in the Court of Shri A.S. Sodhi, the respondents were openly saying that case would be dismissed against them on that day. However, the case was not dismissed on that date and the same was adjourned to 1.7.83 for awaiting the summons in respect of the unserved respondents. The apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get justice was confirmed when on 13.6.1983, on reaching the Court, he came to know that the respondents had enjoyed the hospitality of the Magistrate in his chamber and on coming out of the chamber, the Magistrate observed that he would not transfer the case of his own, as it was done earlier by his predecessor and that he would see that the respondents were discharged on the very day and the chapter closed. The petitioner moved an application, that he proposed to get the case transferred from the Court in question and the case was adjourned to 8.7.1983. However, on 1.7.1983 which was the date fixed in the case for summoning the unserved respondents, the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the unserved respondents at the instance of the other corespondents, though, by that time no report on the summons issued for that date, had been received, nor was any prayer made by the petitioner for issue of bailable warrants. The relations of Shri O.P. Satija, who is highly placed and his private visits to the highly placed officers, of the district have raised a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would not get justice from the judicial officers posted within the circle of respondent No. 1 which comprises of Ludhiana, Ferozepure, Sangrur'' Faridkot and Bhatinda districts.

The comments of Shri A.S. Sidhu, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate were sent for. He has stated that he joined the present post on 27.4.1983. He also stortly denied the allegations made by the petitioner against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 1 Shri O.P. Satija, Superintending Engineer is highly placed officer and he must be coming in contact with the local officers and must be exercising his influence over them. To support his submission, he relied upon the previous history of the case under which the petitioner and his brother were arrested. We are not concerned with that history. The question to be considered is whether the Magistrate has behaved in such a manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would not get justice from that Court. A case from one district to another cannot be transferred merely on the ground that it is the against some highly placed officer. Shri A.S. Sodhi in his comments has denied that he has any official dealings with Shri O.P. Satija in connection with any work.

The petitioner was asked to supply the various dates on which the criminal complaint filed by him was taken up by the Court concerned. It appears that the case was instituted near about 23.8.1982 on which date the case was adjourned by the then Judicial Magistrate I class to 18.9.1982 for preliminary evidence, and vide order dated 13.10.1982 the Magistrate summoned respondent No. 1 to 3 to face trial under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and all the respondents to face the proceedings under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was taken up on various dates for the summoning of the respondents. The service on respondents 1 to 3 was effected, but the remaining respondents 4 and 5 could not be served. If the Magistrate was under the influence of Shri O.P. Satija or any of his officers, then he would have dismissed the complaint after recording preliminary evidence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 9.2.1983 by which the magistrate sent the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the transfer of the same on the ground that Shri S.S. Bajaj, Executive Engineer who was arrayed as accused No. 5, was his immediate neighbour and therefore, he did not want to try this complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that then Shri Mundra the learned Magistrate must have been approached by Shri Bajaj and therefore, the latter sought the transfer of the case. I am not prepared to believe the submission. Upto that time Shri Bajaj had not been served. Therefore, it might not have come to the notice of the Magistrate that his neighbour was involved in the Criminal case pending before him. It further appears that on the 11th December, 1982, Shri O.P. Satija and Ashok Kumar had moved an application under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If Shri Mundra was to oblige Shri O.P. Satija, he would have passed some orders on that application. The very fact of the Shri Mundra got the case transferred shows that he wanted to give the impression that justice should not only be done, but it should seem to be done.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, but it, appears that the latter officer met with some accident and was on leave. Some routine orders were passed by the Judicial Magistrate on the file. As noticed earlier, Shri Sodhi joined on the post of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.4.1983. He adjourned the application under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for arguments to 13.6.1983 and for the service of the remaining respondents to 1.7.1983. On 13.6.1983 the petitioner filed an application that he wanted to move the High Court for the transfer of the case. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 13.6.1983 some of the respondents had enjoyed the hospitality of the learned Magistrate in the latter''s chamber and the learned Magistrate had openly said in the Court that he would discharge the respondents on that very day. On enquiry from the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether he had mentioned these facts in the application which he had moved before the trial Court on 13.6.1983, he could not give any reply. On the other hand, the learned Magistrate himself in his order dated 13.6.1983 has remarked that the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get a fair trial was imaginary and without any function, but still he was allowing one adjournment to the petitioner to seek orders from this Court. It is unthinkable that in open Court, a Magistrate would say the accused that he would discharge them. If the respondents intended to approach Shri Sodhi, they could have done so at his residence and not in his chamber. Therefore, it appears that this story has been created by the petitioner as a ground for the transfer of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed on 1.6.1983. By the time, accused No. 4 and 5 had not been served and therefore, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against them. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had not made any prayer for the issuance of bailable warrants and this step was taken by the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the application under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This argument does not appear sound. Accused No. 1 and 3 had been appearing more than one year on different hearings and therefore, as mentioned in the petition, the said accused might have prayed to the Court to take coercive steps for the attendance of the unserved respondents and the Court acceded to the same. The petitioner should not have grievance against that order as his case was being expedited. He must be feeling harassed by attending the Court for more than a year without any fruitful result.

It appears that the main purpose of the petitioner in filing this application is to harass the various respondents and that is why on imaginary grounds, he has filed this transfer application. I do not find any force in this application and dismiss the same.