Dismissed

Natthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2022TACR/321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench dismissed a criminal transfer application. The applicant alleged bias and that the presiding officer had been won over by the accused. Upholding settled law that uncorroborated allegations are insufficient ground for transfer, the transfer application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the trial was refused; the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Natthu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 321 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Natthu Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

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

¶5

Through this application the applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 passed in criminal misc. case (transfer application) No. 998/2022 "Natthu Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others" as well as for transferring the session trial no. 70/2015, "State Vs. Kunwarpal and others", arising out of crime No. 499/2013, under Sections 376/323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Qyoladia, District Bareilly pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO) 1st, Bareilly.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the informant in the aforesaid case and the trial of the aforesaid case is pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO) 1st, Bareilly.

¶7

It is further submitted that the applicant has come to know that the presiding officer has been won over by opposite party no. 2 to 4. In para 7 of the application it has been stated that the applicant has heard the accused persons talking to each other that they will be acquitted in the present case as they have talked to the presiding officer in this regard.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed this prayer submitting that merely on the basis of bald and reckless allegations the trial cannot be transferred. Law in regard to transfer the trial is settled and it can only be transferred when there is reasonable apprehensions to a party that justice will not be done.

¶9

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record, so also the pleadings made in the application, I am of the view that merely on the bald and reckless allegation that the presiding officer has been won over, cannot be a ground for transferring the case/trial in absence of some material to support such apprehension. Law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N (2000) 6 SCC 204 which has been

¶10

followed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in the case of "Nitesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 22 of 2022. The operative part of the order dated 19.04.2022 is as under:-

¶11

8. In Vijay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 1999 (9) SCC 67, the Court said that in absence of any justified reason, it is not proper and legal to exercise power under Section 407 Cr.P.C. In case of Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-

¶12

"... The law with regard to transfer of cases is well-settled. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension."

¶13

9. In Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N (2000) 6 SCC 204, the Apex Court has ruled that:-

¶14

"...The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society."

¶15

In view of the above, the application seems to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 21.7.2022 RC

¶17

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.07.22 17:41:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Natthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maan Singh Goswami and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu Alias Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Mehfooz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Budholiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another