High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 challenging a District Judge's order affirming a rejection of transfer prayer in a Section 138 NI Act case. Court held the petition was misconceived.
Petition dismissed as it was found to be wholly misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195844
Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3113 of 2023
Petitioner :- Uday Pratap Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshman Tripathi,Aniruddha Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
The petitioner is facing trial in a complaint case filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and that he applied for the transfer of the said to any other court. That application was rejected by the court of C.J.M. Varanasi. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision No.470 of 2022 (Uday Pratap Sharma Vs. Singh Raj Laxmi). The District Judge, Varanasi, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the Magistrate by which the prayer for the transfer of the case was declined.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023 A Gautam
Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition in nature of mandamus for transfer of a criminal trial in a cheque dishonour case when the revision was wrongly challenged.
Whether the District Judge was within power to affirm the order of the Magistrate declining the prayer for transfer of case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Uday Pratap Sharma
State of U.P.
Another
Jyotsna Sharma
Aditya Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
