Back
2020 Supreme(All) 597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Tarun Raj Singh – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Transfer Application (Criminal) No. - 133 of 2020
Decided On : 08-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ram Bahadur Singh
Point of law:
Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. There has to be a real apprehension that there would be miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 – SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)5 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 407 – Transfer Application – Transfer application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicant with the prayer to transfer the bail application under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt., from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court of District court Bareilly – Held, Court find that allegations leveled by the applicant as mentioned above are wholly vague and general in nature, which are not supported by any material on record – Now a days such kind of frivolous allegations and triviality are being used unflinchingly by one party of a case as a tool to pressurize the presiding officer to settle its personal score – Entertaining such kind of frivolous allegations without any strong material on record will indirectly cast stigma upon the concerned Presiding Officer for no fault of his – Court do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter – No error or illegality in the order passed by District Judge – Transfer Application Dismissed (Paras 9, 10)
Fact of the Case:
Applicant in the present application are that the applicant is complainant, who has filed complaint dated 20.05.2016 against opposite party no.2 (Chandra Kumar Mishra) for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 325, 307, 357 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, on which opposite party no.2 was summoned vide order dated 19.04.2018 by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly to face trial. On 05.10.2019, opposite party no.2 filed his bail application praying therein to release him on bail. Thereafter applicant filed transfer application dated 11.10.2019 before District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly alleging that accused persons told the applicant that they are Brahmin by caste and the concerned Presiding Officer, who is their distant relative is also Brahmin by caste, therefore, they will get the relief from that court. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 has been spotted on several occasions by the applicant while coming out of the Court of the concerned judge and prayed therein to transfer bail application of opposite party no.2 from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court. On the aforesaid transfer application of the applicant, comment was called from the concerned presiding officer by the District Judge, Bareilly, who in turn submitted his report mentioning that apprehension expressed by the applicant is baseless, imaginary and fabricated. Neither he has any concern with the accused or complainant nor has any relation with them. On behalf of opposite party no.2 oral objection was raised before the District Judge, Bareilly, who after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned rejected the transfer application (3 ka) of the applicant vide order dated 20.02.2020. Grounds of transfer of case as mentioned in transfer application are reproduced herein-below.
Finding of the Court:
Court find that allegations leveled by the applicant as mentioned above are wholly vague and general in nature, which are not supported by any material on record – Now a days such kind of frivolous allegations and triviality are being used unflinchingly by one party of a case as a tool to pressurize the presiding officer to settle its personal score – Entertaining such kind of frivolous allegations without any strong material on record will indirectly cast stigma upon the concerned Presiding Officer for no fault of his – Court do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter – No error or illegality in the order passed by District Judge.
Result: Application Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Ram Bahadur Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.D. Rai learned Additional Government Advocate-1st assisted by Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2. This transfer application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicant with the prayer to transfer the bail application No. 693 of 2019 (State Vs. Chandra Kumar Mishra), under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court of District court Bareilly.
3. Relevant facts of the case in brief as mentioned by the applicant in the present application are that the applicant is complainant, who has filed complaint dated 20.05.2016 against opposite party no.2 (Chandra Kumar Mishra) for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 325, 307, 357 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, on which opposite party no.2 was summoned vide order dated 19.04.2018 by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly to face trial. On 05.10.2019, opposite party no.2 filed his bail application praying therein to release him on bail. Thereafter applicant filed transfer application dated 11.10.2019 before District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly alleging that accused persons told the applicant that they are Brahmin by caste and the concerned Presiding Officer, who is their distant relative is also Brahmin by caste, therefore, they will get the relief from that court. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 has been spotted on several occasions by the applicant while coming out of the Court of the concerned judge and prayed therein to transfer bail application of opposite party no.2 from the court of Special Judge SC/ST Bareilly to any other competent court. On the aforesaid transfer application of the applicant, comment was called from the concerned presiding officer by the District Judge, Bareilly, who in turn submitted his report mentioning that apprehension expressed by the applicant is baseless, imaginary and fabricated. Neither he has any concern with the accused or complainant nor has any relation with them. On behalf of opposite party no.2 oral objection was raised before the District Judge, Bareilly, who after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned rejected the transfer application (3 ka) of the applicant vide order dated 20.02.2020. Grounds of transfer of case as mentioned in transfer application are reproduced herein-below:-
^^1- vfHk;qDrx.k lEcfU/kr ekeys ds ÁkFkhZ ls dgrs gS fd ge tkfr ls czkg~e.k gS vkSj tks tt lkgc ,lŒlhŒ@,lŒVhŒ dksVZ esa gS] oks Hkh czkg~e.k gS] ftuls gekjh nwj dh fj'rsnkjh gS] ftl dkj.k gesa bl U;k;ky; ls cgqr jkgr feysxhA
2- lEcfU/kr ekeys ds ÁkFkhZ us mDr vfHk;qDrx.kksa dks ,lŒlhŒ@,lŒVhŒ U;k;ky; ds tt lkgc ds pSEcj ls fudyrs dbZ ckj ns[kk gSA
3- ÁkFkhZ dks ,lŒlhŒ@,lŒVhŒ U;k;ky; ds tt lkgc ls fu"i{k U;k; dh dksbZ mEehn ugha gS] D;ksafd lEcfU/kr ekeys ds vfHk;qDrx.k dh tt lkgc ls dkQh utnhdh gSA**
4. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the aforesaid allegations submits that on the said facts, applicant apprehends that he will not get justice from the court where the bail application of the opposite party no.2 is pending. No other submission has been raised on behalf of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that transfer application of the applicant is liable to be allowed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate countered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the District Judge, Bareilly has rightly rejected the transfer application (3 ka) of the applicant vide order dated 20.02.2020. Except the oral allegation levelled by the applicant there is no material on record in support of allegation levelled by the applicant. It is also submitted that no detail has been given by the applicant on how the opposite party no.2 is related with the concerned presiding officer. The transfer application has been moved by the a
