Allowed

Satish Chaubey @ Satish Babu Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021TACR/48/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a transfer application by the father of a deceased person in a domestic violence case. The petition sought transfer from Kanpur Nagar to Auraiya due to apprehension regarding a free and fair trial. The court transferred the case to District Etawah.

What did the court decide?

The case is withdrawn from Kanpur Nagar and transferred to the Court of District Etawah.

Satish Chaubey @ Satish Babu Chaubey Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 48 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Chaubey @ Satish Babu Chaubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Achyutanand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Mohan Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 to 6.

¶6

This transfer application is moved on behalf of applicant Satish Chaubey, the father of the deceased to get transfer of S.T. No. 10 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjai Pathak and others) under Sections 498-A and 304 B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar to some other district preferably Auraiya. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit attached to this application are that the opposite party no. 3 - Sanjai Pathak, husband of the deceased, is a practising lawyer of Kanpur Nagar and the opposite party no. 4 - Devi Dayal Pathak, father in law of the deceased, is Mahant of Nageshwar Mahadev Mandir, who has influence in the society at Kanpur Nagar having relation with the reputed persons. It is said that the applicant has apprehension that he will not get free and fair trial in Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The application is opposed by Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 to 6. It is submitted by him that Sanjai Pathak, husband of the deceased, is having only 4-5 years of practice and he cannot be said to be influential Advocate in the Court and the Mahant of the temple can also be not said to be influential person. It is also argued that not even a single incident is mentioned by the applicant and feeling apprehension is forged.

¶8

The fact that Sanjai Pathak, husband of the deceased, is a practicising lawyer, though not referred, is not denied by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the applicant that he will not get free and fair trial in Kanpur Nagar, appears to be logical. In my opinion, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶9

The transfer application is allowed . S.T. No. 10 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjai Pathak and others) under Sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur

¶10

Nagar, is withdrawn from Kanpur Nagar and is transferred to the Court concerned of District Etawah.

¶11

The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar is directed to send the above file to District Etawah immediately after receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

The parties shall appear in the Court of District Judge, Etawah on 21st December, 2021.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 gp

Satish Chaubey @ Satish Babu Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chaubey @ Satish Babu Chaubey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Harihar Prasad Pathak

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Brijesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Sughar Singh Vs State of U. P

Aniruddh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another