Dismissed

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2018TACR/433/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a transfer application in a dowry and 498A case pending in Kairana. It held that allegations of influence by the respondent's cousin and unavailability of records were baseless given the applicant's senior counsel representation and no acceptable grounds existed for transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer application rejected; proceedings remain in District Shamli.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 433 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for transfer of Case No.877/9 of 1996 State Vs. Pramod and others, arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 1996 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli from district Shamli to any other district.

¶7

The prayer for transfer of the proceeding of the aforesaid case has been made particularly on the two grounds; first, the cousin brother of opposite party no.2 is a practising lawyer in the court at Kairana and secondly, the statement recorded by the court concerned in the year 2006 is not available. Both the grounds have been duly considered by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar who after consideration has found the transfer application frivolous and has rejected the same vide order dated 02.08.2018.

¶8

Bare perusal of the material as brought before this Court, it transpires that Case No.877/9 of 1996 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, was pending disposal in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana wherein proceeding is underway and the allegations have been made that Rajendra Singh, cousin brother of opposite party no.2 is exercising pressure on the court concerned and is influencing the proceeding of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana.

¶9

However, bare perusal of the order dated

¶10

02.08.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar is itself explanatory of fact that senior lawyer has been engaged by the applicant to conduct the proceedings of the aforesaid case who had been in past the President of the Bar, Shamli for several occasions. This by itself is indicative of fact that in case any pressure had been exerted by cousin brother of opposite party no.2 on the court concerned, the same would have been resisted by the Senior Counsel who happens to be Senior Counsel. The ground of influence being exercised by the cousin brother of opposite party no.2 on the court concerned appears to be baseless. The entire allegation made by way of absence of the record cannot be made a ground for transfer of the proceeding of the aforesaid case. There is no worthy ground for transferring the case from district Shamli to any other court.

¶11

Consequently, the instant transfer application is rejected.

¶12

The observation made in this order shall not be construed to have any reflection on merits of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.10.2018 rkg

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singhania Vs State of U.P.

Pravin Kumar Das Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Alias Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Ku. Arti (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others