http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.)  6163 of 2004

PETITIONER: Smt. Parminder Kaur

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2007

BENCH: C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6163 of 2004 [With Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2005  and Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 75 of 2005]

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2005 and Transfer  Petition (Crl.) No. 75 of 2005:

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.   

       These two transfer petitions under Section 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. Parminder Kaur under Sections 446,  467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code [for short,  "IPC"]  and Case No. 1434/2004 under Sections 466, 468, 471  and 420 of IPC 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.   The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of these  petitions are set out as under:-         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 3rd April, 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 27th March, 1991.  It is  alleged in these petitions that after lapse of some time the  husband of the petitioner found the conduct of respondent No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

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 07th January,  1996 and 10th January, 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 07th March, 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 03rd July, 1991 and obtained  mutation order dated 30th August, 1991 of the Tehsildar,  Bilaspur, recorded in Mutation Case No. 8-M of 1991.         The husband of the petitioner then appointed the  petitioner as his Attorney by executing Power of Attorney dated  25th September, 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  4th February, 2000 with regard to her land.         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 27th May, 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  07th March, 1996 and order dated 30th August, 1991.  The  Collector, Rampur, dismissed all the three revision  applications by order dated 16th October, 2002 on the sole  ground of delay of 6-11 years in challenging the impugned  mutation orders of the Tehsildar.         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.         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 25th August,  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 25th  September 1996 before the Superintendent of Police, Rampur,  and obtained an order of registration of false and fabricated  case FIR No. 160 dated 17th October, 2003 in Police Station,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Bilaspur, District Rampur, under Sections 463, 468, 420 of  IPC 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 May, 2002 as 18 May, 2002.  The  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 10th October, 2003  issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. On 19th  December, 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 20th December, 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 23rd December, 2003.  In the meantime, the  police filed charge sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial  Magistrate against the petitioner on 22nd December, 2003  under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, the subject  matter of Case No. 1434/2004.  However, on 24th December,  2003 the petitioner was released on bail by the Additional  Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rampur.         Again, on 27th February, 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 Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC against the  petitioner.  On the basis of the said charge sheet, the Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, on 13th July, 2004 took  cognizance of Case No. 3045/2004 against the petitioner.  On  25th May, 2004/3rd June, 2004, the petitioner filed Criminal  Miscellaneous Application No. 4313 of 2004 under Section 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.           This Court vide order dated 9th August, 2004 transferred  Original Case No. 268/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind Singh  through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v. Prabhjot Singh & Ors.,  Original Case No. 266/2002 titled as Col. Hargobind Singh  through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v. Har Gur Saran Singh  & Ors. and Original Case No. 267/2002 titled as Smt.  Amrinder Kaur through Attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur v. 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.   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

court during the trial of the cases in view of an open threat  extended to her life by respondent No. 2.           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 3rd April, 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 27th March, 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 3rd July, 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 7th January, 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 10th January, 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.          It is his case that the petitioner came to India in the year  2002 and by that time the prices of land shot up in and  around the village where the agricultural lands are situated.   He stated that the petitioner is actuated with lust and greed  for money  and hence compelled him to get more money from  the above named bona fide purchasers who are the common  relatives of both of them.  He stated that he tried his best to  persuade the petitioner not to raise any demand for more  money but she remained adamant and on his refusal to  accede to her illegal demand, the petitioner unblemishably  extended threat to teach him a  lesson.  She with a mala fide  and dishonest intention filed civil suits for cancellation of the  sale deeds in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division),  Rampur, which later were on transferred by this Court to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

court in Delhi. He stated that the petitioner interpolated the  dates in the certified copies issued from the revenue records,  Rampur, with a  mala fide intention  to get delay of more than  eleven years condoned from the Collector against the order of  Tehsildar, Rampur.  She submitted forged and fabricated  documents in the civil court.  He has admitted having filed two  criminal cases against the petitioner in the Court of Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, in which she was granted bail by  the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rampur.         Further, he stated in his counter affidavit that he and his  elder brother Lt. Col. (Retd.) Hargobind singh are joint owners  of House No. 1394, Sector 33-C at Chandigarh in equal shares  as per family settlement dated 10th November, 1970.  The  petitioner with a mala fide intention to grab the share of  respondent No. 2, clandestinely entered into an agreement of  sale of that house with one Pritam Kaur Sekhon, resident of  3015, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh, and received Rs. 1,00,000/-  from her as advance money.  Subsequent to the first  agreement, the petitioner again entered into second agreement  with regard to the same property with Charan Jiv Singh and  Mrs. Hariti Singh, resident of House No. 324, Sector 9-D,  Chandigarh, and received Rs. 5,00,000/- from them as  earnest money and obtained No Objection Certificate [NOC] in  favour of the purchasers from the Estate Office, Chandigarh.   The petitioner after receiving the earnest money again backed  out from the terms of the agreement and also compelled  Charan Jiv Singh and Mrs. Hariti Singh to file civil and  criminal cases against her.  They got a public notice published  in a local daily advising the public at large not to enter into  any agreement in regard to the said property as it was  purchased by them from the petitioner.  He stated that he  came to know about the aforesaid illegal and nefarious acts of  the petitioner regarding the disposal of House No. 1394,  Sector-33 C at Chandigarh. He filed Civil Suit No.79/2004  against his elder brother for declaration claiming 50 per cent  share in the joint property which is pending in the Court of  Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh.  He stated that both  the petitioner as well as her husband Lt. Col. (Retd.)  Hargobind Singh are contesting the said case.  The petitioner  has lodged several false complaints in the court at Chandigarh  against him and his son who is serving as Major in the Indian  Army.  It is his version that he was granted anticipatory bail  by the court in a case registered by the petitioner vide FIR No.  228 dated 20th July, 2005 of P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh.  The  petitioner filed an application dated 24th October, 2005 for  cancellation of his bail but the same was rejected by the  District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.         He submitted that the petitioner is a lady of means and  can very well afford to defend the case in the Court of Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, whereas he is a poor farmer and  would not be in a position to get the criminal cases prosecuted  against the petitioner at Delhi or Chandigarh because of his  inadequate financial position and being an old man of 65  years of age, he is unable to bear with the arduous journey of  about 400-500 kms. by train from village Behait to Delhi or  Chandigarh if the cases are transferred to either of these  places.         In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated and  reasserted the averments made by her in the transfer petitions  and denied the counter allegations made by respondent No.2  in his counter affidavit.         Shri Avadhesh Kumar Vijeta working as C.O., Bilaspur,  District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, in his affidavit filed on behalf  of the State of Uttar Pradesh, states that the FIR dated  17.10.2003 came to be registered against the petitioner at the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

instance of respondent No.2 and after completion of the  investigation charge sheet was laid before the trial court.  He  stated that the petitioner had attended the proceedings of the  criminal cases before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur  and she has not lodged any complaint with the police against  respondent No.2 for extending threats to her life or causing  any physical harm to her.  He stated that if the criminal cases  are transferred to the courts of other States, it would result in  undue delay in the disposal of the cases and the State  Government would also incur additional and unnecessary  expenditure of the official witnesses, who will have to  undertake their journey from Rampur to other places outside  the State.               We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and  learned counsel for the State of U.P.  Respondent No.2, who  was present, argued as a party in-person and canvassed all  possible contentions in opposition to the transfer petitions.         The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the  petitioner is that if the petitioner has to go to Rampur to  attend the proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial  Magistrate, her safety would be in danger or she apprehends  physical harm to her from respondent No.2 or anti-social  elements.  In our view, this is too nebulous a ground for  transferring the cases from the Court of Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Rampur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at  Delhi or Chandigarh.  The petitioner has not substantiated her  apprehension of threat or bodily harm or intimidation from  respondent No. 2 or other anti-social elements as alleged by  her.  She has been going to Rampur in the past and attended  the court proceedings before Magistrate and Collector but no  untoward incident was ever brought to the notice of the police  or the Chief Judicial Magistrate by her against respondent  No.2   If the petitioner fears any sort of threat to her life, she  can report the matter to the police or the Court who, in its  turn, can after considering the needs of the situation, pass  orders according to law including appropriate directions for  police protection.         The next plea of illness of the petitioner is not supported  by medical evidence.  The petitioner has been travelling all the  way from USA to India and going to Rampur to look after the  landed property of her husband and daughter as their  Attorney.       She has been going and attending the cases in the  High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in the civil court at  Delhi pending inter se the petitioner and respondent No.2.   The petitioner and respondent No.2, both practically seem to  be of the same age group.  The petitioner has also filed  criminal case against respondent No.2 at Chandigarh and he  has been attending the proceedings of the said case going all  the way from Rampur and covering a distance of about 500  kms. as averred by him in his counter affidavit.          The petitioner is a person of means and it will not be  difficult for her to attend the hearing of the criminal cases  pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.   The comparative inconvenience of the litigant parties are not  the only criterion for transferring the cases from one State to  another State, but the Court has to visualize the comparative  inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the  witnesses besides the burden to be borne by the State  Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other  expenses of the official and non-official witnesses who will  have to travel by train from Rampur to Delhi or Chandigarh,  as the case may be, for attending the court proceedings if the  cases are ordered to be transferred to transferee court.  During  the course of the hearing of these petitions, we are told that  the distance between Rampur and Delhi is about 400-500

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

kms. We cannot loose sight of one more factor viz.,  that the  criminal courts situated at Delhi or Chandigarh are already  over-burdened with the pendency of the cases and it would not  be in the interest of the litigating parties as well as in the  interest of justice to add more cases to the dockets of the  transferee courts to keep the trial of those cases pending for  decades.  In the circumstances, on the basis of vague and  unfounded allegations made by the petitioner in the transfer  applications against the respondent, we are not persuaded to  accept the prayer of the petitioner for transferring the trial of  Case Nos.3045/2004 and 1434/2004 pending in the Court of  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, either to  the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts,  Delhi, or to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Chandigarh.         In the result, for the above-said reasons, these transfer  petitions are dismissed accordingly.                     Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6163 of 2004: This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the  petitioner against the order dated 23rd November, 2004  recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of  Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application  No. 4290/2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioner Smt.  Parminder Kaur has been directed to deposit the passport in  terms of the order dated 24th December, 2003 within a week  from the date of the order in the trial court. The petitioner was granted bail by the Additional  Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Rampur, Uttar  Pradesh vide order dated 24th December, 2003, on the  conditions that she will not leave India till the conclusion of  the proceedings in Case Crime No.390 of 2003 pending in the  Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh,  under Sections 466, 468, 420 IPC pertaining to P.S. Bilaspur,  District Rampur.  The passport of the petitioner was also got  deposited.  The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous  Application No. 4290 of 2004 in the High Court of Judicature  at Allahabad inter alia praying that the conditions so imposed  by the court below may be removed so as to enable her to  attend her old and ailing husband who is getting medical  treatment in USA under the care of his daughters. The High  Court vide order dated 03rd June, 2004, was pleased to  suspend the operation of conditions so imposed for the period  of two months and directed the release of passport of the  petitioner.  On 0th August, 2004, three weeks’ further time was  extended and the said period had expired on 27th August,  2004, when it was obligatory and mandatory for the petitioner  to have deposited the passport as per the order of the Court. It appears that respondent No.2 herein moved the  Criminal Miscellaneous Clarification Application No.204282 of  2004 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with a  prayer that as the petitioner has not complied with the order  of the court, she be directed to deposit the passport and  necessary consequential action shall be taken against her.   The learned Single Judge of the High Court observed in the  order dated 23rd November, 2004, impugned in this petition,  as under: "\005. Since the applicant is an old and  ailing lady of 75 years age it appears that  under some misunderstanding, she could  not deposit the passport.  So I am not  inclined to pass any adverse order  against her.  She is directed to deposit  the passport in the trial court within a  week from today. With these observations, the modification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

application is disposed of."

It is this order which is under challenge before us. During the hearing of the Special Leave Petition, the  learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted  before us that the petitioner has complied with the directions  of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd November, 2004,     and  deposited her passport in the trial court within the stipulated  period. In view of the subsequent development, this Special  Leave Petition does not survive and it stands disposed of  having rendered infructuous.