AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 239 wordsVipin Sanghi, CJ
1) Counsel for the petitioners states that he has no instructions in the matter.
2) I have perused the petition.
3) The petitioners have preferred the present petition, under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., to seek transfer of Criminal Case No. 1466 / 2018, titled ‘State Vs Abhishek Mittal and others’, under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC, and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Dehradun, to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, or learned Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar.
4) The only ground taken in the affidavit supporting the petition is that respondent No. 2, wife of petitioner No. 1, is a local resident of Dehradun, and the petitioners claim that respondent No. 2 has issued threats to the petitioners, that as and when they will get the occasion, they will kill the petitioners. The petitioners entertain the apprehension that they may be harmed if they visit the court at Dehradun to attend the case.
5) The petitioners claim that respondent No. 2, along with her family members, came to the residence of the petitioners at Sonipat and attacked them, on the basis of which FIR No. 428 of 2017 was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines Sonipat, on 04.11.2017. In my view is no reason for transfer of the criminal case aforesaid.
6) The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.