Kanaklata v. The State & Ors

1. This is a petition under section 407 of Cr.P.C for transfer of Sessions Case No.1006/09 arising out of FIR No.156/2008 registered at P.S.Muliierjee Nagar from the court where it is presently pending to any other Sessions courts at Rohini or Tis Hazari.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 4^^ May, 2008, the aforesaid FIR was got registered by the petitioner against respondent no.2 and his family members on the allegations of beatings being given to her a, well as to her sister and brother for being Dalit. As per petitioner, she was the tenant of respondent no.2. In the FIR, it is alleged that simple injuries liave been caused to petitioner in the alleged incident. On 8^^ July, 2008 charged sheet was filed and arguments on charge were heard by the learned ASJ Rohini, Delhi. On 22"^^ March, 2010, the learned ASJ discharged all the TRP(Crl.)31/2013 2013:DHC:8224 accused persons/respondents 2 to 10 under section 3 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereupon petitioner had filed the revision petition being Crl.R.242/2010 before this court which was decided vide order dated lO"^ December, 2012 and the order of discharge dated 22"^ March, 2010 passed by the Id.ASJ was set aside and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter on 4^^ January, 2013, the petitioner had moved a Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.19/2013 before the Id.District & Sessions Judge (N/W) Rohini Courts. However, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 22"*^ May, 2013 for want ofjurisdiction, as such the present petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the learned ASJ had passed the order ofdischarge ofrespondents on 22"^* March, 2010, the learned ASJ had observed that the case filed by the petitioner was abuse of a special legislation with stringent provisions which has been enacted to ameliorate the lot of the hitherto, under privileged, deprived and marginalized section of the society. The Id.ASJ further observed that unfortunately one comes across growing instances of cases where the provision of the aforesaid Act have not such much been invoked for the betterment of those to whom it seeks to protect, than by those who want to settle personal scores by giving to an otherwise ordinary dispute the colour of alleged atrocity under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is submitted that the Id.Additional Sessions Judge has observed in the order of discharge dated 22"^ March, 2010 that the Act is being misused, inthese circumstances, ii will be appropriate that the case be transferred from the court where it is presently pending to some other court.

4. I have considered the submissions and gone through the material on record.

5. It may be mentioned that the order of discharge dated 22"^ March, 2010 wherein aforesaid observations were made, has already been set aside by this court vide order dated 10^*^ December, 2012 in Crl.R.P.No.242/2010. While setting aside the said order, this court has observed as under:- "It is however, clarified that fresh order shall be passed by the Sessions Court uninfluenced by an observation made in the order which has now been set aside and also by anything said by this Court in the present order since this' court has not gone into the merits ofthe allegations against the accused."

6. It may also be mentioned that in Crl.R.P.No.242/2010 filed before this court, no such request was made for transfer, as is prayed now. Further this court has already directed while setting aside the order of discharge that Id.ASJ shall pass fi-esh order uninfluenced by an observation made in the said order.

7. In these circumstances, I flnd no justified reason for transfer of the petition specially when the order wherein such observations were made has already been set aside. No justified grounds have been given for transfer ofthe petition. Petition has no merits. The same stands dismissed.

VEENA BIRBAL, J AUGUST 29, 2013//ssb