On 20th December, 2003, she was produced in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
The petitioner alleges in these proceedings that after instituting the three civil suits in the trial companyrt, she and her husband received serious threats to their lives from respondent No.2.
Hargobind singh are joint owners of House No.
Amrinder Kaur appointed the petitioner as her Power of Attorney executed on 4th February, 2000 with regard to her land.
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 stated that if the criminal cases are transferred to the companyrts 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.
She submitted forged and fabricated documents in the civil companyrt.
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.
2 and mutation orders recorded by the Tehsildar, the petitioner filed three suits bearing Original Case Nos.
Further, he stated in his companynter affidavit that he and his elder brother Lt.
2 number to deal with her land any more in any manner.
Again, on 27th February, 2004 the respondent No.
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.
4470/2003, 4472/2003 and 4475/2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2 and some police personnel accompanying him forcibly dragged the petitioner from Chandigarh and she was brought to Rampur in a private vehicle.
5,00,000/ from them as earnest money and obtained No Objection Certificate NOC in favour of the purchasers from the Estate Office, Chandigarh.
However, later on as per the instructions of Smt.
2 has given a detailed background of the family history of the parties involved in these cases.
Hargobind Singh through Attorney Smt.
The petitioner with a mala fide intention to grab the share of respondent No.
The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
He stated that he came to know about the aforesaid illegal and nefarious acts of the petitioner regarding the disposal of House No.
He stated that he tried his best to persuade the petitioner number 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.
According to the petitioner, the mutation orders were obtained fraudulently and at the back of the petitioners husband by respondent No.
He pleaded that in the year 1990, the petitioners husband and his daughter asked him to get some portions of their lands sold and transferred, but at that point of time there were numberbuyers readily available in the market due to terrorist activities prevailing in the area.
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.
He stated that the petitioner interpolated the dates in the certified companyies issued from the revenue records, Rampur, with a mala fide intention to get delay of more than eleven years companydoned from the Collector against the order of Tehsildar, Rampur.
2 as her Attorney on 27th March, 1991.
are aged persons.
The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court in view of the pendency of the civil suits in the civil companyrt.
324, Sector 9 D, Chandigarh, and received Rs.
She filed bail application which came to be rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23rd December, 2003.
Namrata Chandi and Col.
1,00,000/ from her as advance money.
It is alleged in these petitions that after lapse of some time the husband of the petitioner found the companyduct of respondent No.
2 unfair and dishonest therefore, on 29.07.1975 he revoked the Power of Attorney given to respondent No.
P.C. for quashing Case No.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred three Civil Writ Petition Nos.
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.
4313 of 2004 under Section 482 Cr.
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.
Simultaneously, on 27th May, 2002 the petitioner filed three revision applications being Revision Application Nos.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 10th October, 2003 issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
The petitioner stated that respondent No.
This Court vide order dated 9th August, 2004 transferred Original Case No.
Thus, as an Attorney of petitioners 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 companysideration were duly remitted by bank drafts to both the owners without any delay on his part.
But irrespective of the revocation of the said Power of Attorney, respondent No.
71 of 2005 and Transfer Petition Crl.
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 companyrts in different States.
Similarly, on the instructions of petitioners 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.
228 dated 20th July, 2005 of P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh.
In reply to the transfer applications, respondent No.
In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated and reasserted the averments made by her in the transfer petitions and denied the companynter allegations made by respondent No.2 in his companynter affidavit.
2, Rampur.
2 registered another FIR under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner.
Therefore, on 25th August, 2003 the petitioner filed Transfer Petition Nos.
3045/2004 against the petitioner.
1/5 to them.
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.
The passport of the petitioner was also got deposited.
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.
However, on 24th December, 2003 the petitioner was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.
75 of 2005 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Transfer Petition Crl.
1394, Sector 33 C at Chandigarh in equal shares as per family settlement dated 10th November, 1970.
1434/2004.
Hargobind Singh are companytesting the said case.
P.C. have been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of case No.
He stated that the petitioner had attended the proceedings of the criminal cases before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and she has number lodged any companyplaint with the police against respondent No.2 for extending threats to her life or causing any physical harm to her.
8 M of 1991.
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.
The petitioner after receiving the earnest money again backed out from the terms of the agreement and also companypelled Charan Jiv Singh and Mrs. Hariti Singh to file civil and criminal cases against her.
The case of the petitioner is that when she came to know about the transactions made by respondent No.
160 dated 17th October, 2003 in Police Station, 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 companydonation of delay in filing the said revision petitions, the Collector had numbericed that the dates of applications submitted for obtaining companyies of orders of mutations recorded by Tehsildar, Bilaspur, were interpolated for 09 May, 2002 as 18 May, 2002.
On 25th May, 2004/3rd June, 2004, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
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 number 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.
Sarabjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1991 and companysequently, the land was mutated in their names in the revenue records.
In substance, his defence is that his elder brother Lt.
2 as a General Attorney authorizing him to cultivate, look after and deal with his agricultural land.
In spite of the revocation of Power of Attorney, respondent No.
Out of 23 acres of land, the petitioners husband had gifted 6 acres of land to his adopted daughter Smt.
Amrinder Kaur in the year 1979.
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 instance of respondent No.2 and after companypletion of the investigation charge sheet was laid before the trial companyrt.
They have got four daughters but numberson.
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.
228 B of 1996 and 229 B of 1996.
He stated that as an obedient brother and as an affectionate uncle of Smt.
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.
268/2002 titled as Col.
Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, got some land in the same village and she too appointed respondent No.
Amrinder Kaur also appointed respondent No.2 as her Attorney with effect from 27th March, 1991.
Hargobind Singh, husband of the petitioner, purchased 23 acres of land in Revenue Estate of village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.
In the meantime, the police filed charge sheet in the companyrt 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.
267/2002 titled as Smt.
2 even hired some anti social persons directing them to chase the petitioner when she had gone to Rampur and other places.
The petitioner on the premises above said filed these transfer petitions inter alia companytending that she is an ailing old woman of 72 years of age and needs medical and physical care and in such companyditions, 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 civil suits are pending in Delhi and therefore, the criminal cases lodged by respondent No.
In the meantime, as a companynter blast, respondent No.
Parminder Kaur v. Har Gur Saran Singh Ors.
Parminder Kaur v. Har Gur Saran Singh Ors.
The police of Rampur is in companylusion with 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.
She alleges that respondent No.
No.6163 of 2004 With Transfer Petition Crl.
Amrinder Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, also revoked her Power of Attorney and asked respondent No.
Hargobind Singh Retd.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
He appointed his younger brother Har Gur Saran Singh, respondent No.
Amrinder Kaur, he sold 06 acres of her land in favour of his daughter Smt.
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.
by train from village Behait to Delhi or Chandigarh if the cases are transferred to either of these places.
and Original Case No.
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 companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
2 who is a nefarious litigant and in such circumstances numberfair trial is possible from the companyrt at Rampur.
On 19th December, 2003, respondent No.
The daughters are settled in the United States of America USA.
1394, Sector 33 C at Chandigarh.
Similarly, Smt.
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.
Parminder Kaur v. Prabhjot Singh Ors.,
266/2002 titled as Col.
They got a public numberice published in a local daily advising the public at large number to enter into any agreement in regard to the said property as it was purchased by them from the petitioner.
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 companyrt at Rampur.
On the basis of the said charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, on 13th July, 2004 took companynizance of Case No.
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 companyrt in Delhi.
His brother executed General Power of Attorney dated 3rd April, 1970 duly registered in the Office of Sub Registrar, Saugor Madhya Pradesh , appointing and companystituting respondent No.
4290/2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioner Smt.
1434/2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which, according to the petitioner, is still pending.
He stated that both the petitioner as well as her husband Lt.
While in service, he purchased some agricultural land in village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.
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.
2 filed one more companyplaint making similar allegations and the police under the influence of respondent No.
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.
He stated that the petitioner is actuated with lust and greed for money and hence companypelled him to get more money from the above named bona fide purchasers who are the companymon relatives of both of them.
Hargobind Singh is a retired Army Officer.
There is numberother male member in the family of the petitioner who would accompany her to Rampur.
The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are set out as under Smt.
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 companyditions that she will number leave India till the companyclusion 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.
2 filed an application companyplaint dated 25th September 1996 before the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, and obtained an order of registration of false and fabricated case FIR No.
The petitioners 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.
2 against the petitioner at Rampur shall also be transferred to Delhi or Chandigarh in the interest of justice and as the petitioners life would be in danger if she goes to Rampur to appear in the companyrt during the trial of the cases in view of an open threat extended to her life by respondent No.
They are number keeping good health and are suffering from various diseases.
The petitioner has lodged several false companyplaints in the companyrt at Chandigarh against him and his son who is serving as Major in the Indian Army.
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.
Amrinder Kaur through Attorney Smt.
71 of 2005 and Transfer Petition Crl.
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.
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.
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.
Parminder Kaur, petitioner herein, and her husband Lt.
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.
Hargobind Singh through Attorney Smt.
