Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) Nos. 254-255 OF 2017
1. The present application seeks transfer of F.I.R. No. 351 of 2016 Under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered at the Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi, and F.I.R. No. 1742 of 2016 Under Sections 379, 323, 376, 354, 506, 420, Indian Penal Code before the Indirapuram Police Station, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh), registered on complaints lodged by the Petitioner against Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, to the court of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. The Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that she is a permanent resident of Mumbai and is a practicing Advocate before the Mumbai High Court. Her case was not being investigated by any police officer of New Delhi despite her written complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police dated 15.07.2017 and meeting with the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police. She fears that investigation may not be done fairly. She has been receiving threats from the Accused persons and was finding it difficult to pursue matters in Delhi as her professional engagements in Mumbai were also suffering because of the same. The investigation in the FIRs is thus sought to the transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai.
3. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit that the Petitioner has also lodged F.I.R. No. 331 of 2016 Under Section 354-B, Indian Penal Code, against one Shri Ram Chander, Auto Rickshaw Driver at Delhi, and F.I.R. No. CD-PG-000260 of 2016 Under Section 380 Indian Penal Code, against the staff of Hotel Prince, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Opposing the transfer petitions, it is submitted that the Accused and the prosecution witnesses are all situated in Delhi. The Respondent who is also an advocate practicing at Delhi would likewise be hindered in his professional engagements for like reasons, if the cases are transferred to Mumbai.
4. We shall notice the facts of the case only to the extent necessary for purposes of the present order so as not to prejudice the case of either party. The rejoinder by the Petitioner does not dispute the institution of other FIRs by her at Delhi. The