Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
TEJ PRATAP TIWARI
Nitesh Rastogi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The CJM/Lucknow transferred a case which the court held to be without legal foundation because CJM lacks power to transfer; transfer power lies with Sessions Judge (!) (!) - Statutory provisions: transfer of cases is governed by CrPC sections on transfer by High Court or Sessions Judge; CJM’s power is administrative/withdrawal, not transfer, under sections 410 and related, with transfer powers reserved to Sessions Judge or High Court (Section 15, 410, 192, 199 equivalents) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - BNSS/CrPC alignment shows CJM’s transfer power is not explicit; prior approvals and affidavit requirements are applicable; absence of affidavit in application cited as defect (non-compliance) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court set aside the CJM transfer order and allowed the petition, clarifying that CJM cannot transfer cases and that the transfer should be governed by Sections 408/410 CrPC or 408/448 BNSS as appropriate, with Sessions Judge having authority to transfer within the division; prior rejection by Sessions Judge complicates legality (!) (!) - Observed that the scheme of transfer shows authority to transfer lies with Supreme Court, High Court, and Sessions Judge; CJM’s power to transfer is not provided; circulars require prior approval for administrative distribution of work, not transfer authority (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of transfer order and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on transfer authority and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of legal provisions on case transfer. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's decision on transfer order's legality. (Para 21) |
| 5. conclusion and directives for future procedures. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS to quash/set aside impugned Transfer Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow whereby, trial of the Criminal Case No. 6148/2022 State vs. Bijendra Pal Singh and others has been transferred from the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st (A.T.S.), Lucknow to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Lucknow.
Factual Matrix
2. Shorn of the details, an FIR lodged against opposite party no.2 Bijendra Pal Singh and opposite party no.3 Rajiv Singh alleging fraudulent misappropriation of gold jewellery worth approximately 3,20,00,000/- on 02.09.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 219 of 2021 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506 IPC, with Sections 170, 467, 468,
Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to transfer criminal cases; such authority exclusively belongs to the Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Transfer of cases under Section 407 should only occur in exceptional circumstances where a fair trial is jeopardized, focusing on the totality of convenience for justice rather than mere preference o....
Transfer of under-trial prisoners requires judicial reasoning and fair procedure; arbitrary transfers violate rights and must be quashed.
The High Court has the authority to permit the transfer of cases between Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption and Money Laundering Acts, despite statutory provisions suggesting otherwise....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
