The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition with the observation that if the petitioner has no problem in going to Jabalpur for a job, then what is the problem of going to Anuppur for trial?
The matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice (Acting) Sanjay Yadav and Justice Rajiv Kumar Dubey.
Advocate Manish Sharma appeared in the Court on behalf of the petitioner, a resident of Jabalpur. He argued that the police had registered a dowry harassment case against the petitioner while he was posted in Anuppur. The matter is under consideration in the court, where the charge sheet has been filed.
The Counsel further argued that the petitioner has resumed service after serving a suspension since the dowry harassment case was registered against him. With this, the petitioner has been shifted to Jabalpur. That is why the petitioner laid emphasis on transferring the case going on in Anuppur to Jabalpur.
It will be difficult to cooperate in the trial from going Jabalpur to Anuppur amidst the threat of Covid-19, the petitioner’s advocate added.
In protest against this argument, it was argued by the state that when the petitioner can work in Jabalpur in the midst of the crisis of Covid-19, then what is the problem in coming to Anuppur for trial?
After hearing this argument, the court dismissed the petition. The court made it clear that relief should not be expected by making excuses like this. The Bench does not operate from anyone’s private facility. As long as the case is sub-judice, attendance in the court is required.
Before dowry harassment, there was no thought of the problem in the job, so why demand to transfer the case now? asked the Court.
The Court ordered that since the demand for transfer of dowry harassment case from Anuppur to Jabalpur is meaningless, the petitioner’s petition is dismissed.