Advocates:
['M K RAY', '', 'M S BHANDARI', 'VINAY SINGH CHAUHAN', 'UNNATI PANT', 'G A']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 689 of 2022

Sudesh Pal

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents

Present:

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

impugned order dated 04.05.2022, passed in Misc.

Transfer Application No. 100 of 2022, Mohd. Salim Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others, by the court of Sessions

Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2021 (relating to FIR

No. 120 of 2021, under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 IPC,

Police Station Sitarganj) State Vs. Ravindra Singh was

pending in the court of Additional and Sessions Judge,

Udham Singh Nagar. An application for its transfer was

made by the private respondent on the ground that he is

informant, witness and the brother of the deceased. The

2

witnesses are resident of Sitarganj. In case, they are

required to depose in the court at Rudrapur, District

Udham Singh Nagar, in may cause inconvenience to them.

Therefore, the trial may be transferred to the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham

Singh Nagar.

4.

It appears that the Presiding Judge of the court

of 1^st Additional and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar

gave his comments on this transfer application and

submitted that he has no objection if the trial is

transferred.

5.

In the impugned order, it is observed that the

matter pertains to Police Station Sitarganj, which falls in

the jurisdiction of Khatima court. It is, thereafter, the

transfer application has been allowed.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the transfer of the trial is based on false averments

because respondent no.2 Mohd. Salim is not informant of

the case. The transfer of trial has been done on the basis

of assumption only that the trial at Rudrapur, District

Udham Singh Nagar may cause inconvenience to the

witnesses, who come from Sitarganj.

3

7.

Under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the Sessions Judge may transfer the

cases from one criminal court to another criminal court in

his sessions division. The trial pertains to an FIR at Police

Station Sitarganj. The impugned order records that the

Police Station Sitarganj falls within the jurisdiction of

Khatima court. So now, if in Khatima, there is a court of

competent jurisdiction i.e. the court of Additional Sessions

Judge, definitely the trial should have been conducted in

that court only. Not in the court at District Head Quarter.

8.

Since according to the impugned order, Police

Station Sitarganj falls within the jurisdiction of the court

at Khatima, at the initial stage itself, the trial should have

been instituted in the court at Khatima, but not at the

court at the District Head Quarter. For that purpose, even

application was not required. Now, when this fact was

brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge concerned and

he transferred the case, it may not be interfered with. This

order is, in fact, as per the spirit of law and procedure.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the

admission stage.

9.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

17.05.2022

Jitendra