Manju Bansal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

1

AFR

Court No. - 92

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 286 of 2022

¶5

Applicant :- Manju Bansal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Srivastava,Ritukar Gupta,Sr. Advocate

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ritukar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant Sahib Bansal (husband) under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.19 of 2020 (State Vs. Manju Bansal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.567 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Pilakhuva, District Hapur, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.1, Hapur to any other court of competent jurisdiction of another District.

¶10

Succinctly, the applicant's case is that the opposite party no.2- Shivangi Bansal has lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and his family members registered as Case Crime

¶11

2

¶12

No.567 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationPilakhuva, District Hapur, which is registered as Sessions Trial No.19 of 2020 (State Vs. Manju Bansal and others).

¶13

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the marriage of the applicant Sahib Bansal was solemnized with opposite party no.2- Shivangi Bansal on 5.12.215 without demand of any dowry and after sometime the dispute arose between husband and wife. It is further submitted that the parents of the applicant got the applicant and opposite party no.2 separated from them and shifted them in a rented house in New Delhi. It is further submitted that the disputes between applicant and opposite party no.2 could not be cured and under some misconception, a false and frivolous F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant and his family members on 22.10.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376, 511, 120B, 377, 313, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as Case Crime No.567 of 2018 at Police Station Pilakhuva, District Hapur.

¶14

It is further submitted that as a matter of fact before lodging the aforesaid F.I.R., the opposite party no.2 has made a call to the police of Police Station Subhas Place, North West, Delhi on 4.10.2018 in the morning from the house where she was living with her husband at New Delhi with the allegation that her husband was beating her. It is further submitted that the aforesaid complaint was inquired into and it was found that the marriage of applicant and opposite party no.2 was solemnized two years ago and the allegations are that the applicant used to beat the opposite party no.2 for money. It is further submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 were examined and it was found that the dispute is of between husband and wife. The

¶15

3

¶16

opposite party no.2 along with her daughter had gone to her parents' house and was living there. She had given a written letter stating therein that she was not being physically hurt that is why she did not go for her medical examination, therefore, it appears that neither applicant nor opposite party no.2 received any injury. It is further submitted that the first information report was lodged against Mukesh Bansal (father-in-law), Manju Bansal (mother-in-law), Sahib Bansal (husband), Chirag Bansal (Devar) and Shipra Jain (sister-in-law), but during investigation it was found that Chirag Bansal and Shipra Jain were falsely been implicated in the case and the charge-sheet against the applicant was submitted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. It is further submitted that against the aforesaid F.I.R., a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.31131 of 2018 was filed before this Court, whereby the arrest of accused Chirag Bansal and Shipra Jain was stayed till submission of charge-sheet and the remaining accused were directed to appear before the court below and apply for their bail. It is further submitted that against the order of this Court dated 2.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.31131 of 2018, the applicant preferred S.L.P. No.9714 of 2018 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, whereby an order was passed on 15.11.2018 directing that no coercive measure will be taken against the applicants and the notice was issued to the opposite party no.2.

¶17

It is further submitted that vide order dated 4.1.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the parties to explore the possibility of settlement and on 21.1.2019 it was apprised to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no chance of any settlement between the parties, and therefore, the matter was proceeded further and the aforesaid S.L.P. was dismissed with

¶18

4

¶19

a direction to the applicant to appear before the court below. It is further submitted that the father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 had applied for his bail before the court below, but the same was rejected and thereafter, he approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42691 of 2019 and was granted bail vide order dated 24.10.2019. It is next submitted that after submission of charge-sheet, it was challenged before this Court by moving Criminal Misc. Application No.4270 of 2020 and this Court by order dated 17.2.2020 referred the matter for mediation. It is further submitted that the applicant has also approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.7475 of 2020, whereby the matter was referred for mediation by connecting it with Criminal Misc. Application No.4270 of 2020. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 has initiated the proceedings of Complaint Case No.248 of 2019 (Shivangi Bansal Vs. Sahib Bansal and others), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter, the applicant has also approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.16418 of 2020 and this case was also clubbed with Criminal Misc. Application No.7475 of 2020 and interim order was continued. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has also lodged a Complaint Case No.3692 of 2020 under Section 406 I.P.C., which was rejected by the court of learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.1.2021 against all the accused except the accused Sahib Bansal. It is further submitted that against the order of learned Magistrate dated 21.1.2021, the opposite party no.2 has filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Hapur, which too was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2021. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has challenged the order of Sessions Judge dated 2.8.2021 before

¶20

5

¶21

this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is still pending. It is further submitted that when the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 was exonerated from the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 10.1.2020, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2020.

¶22

It is further submitted that on 4.10.2018, the opposite party no.2 made a call to the applicant (husband) and demanded Rs.5 crores. It is further submitted that as per allegations of opposite party no.2, Rs.7 crores were incurred in their marriage by her father, which is false because neither she nor her father was in a position to incur such huge amount in the marriage. It is further submitted that on 24.8.2021, the applicant and his parents moved an application seeking their discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Hapur vide order dated 24.8.2021.

¶23

It is further submitted that the applicant is resident of Pitampura, Delhi and the proceedings of the case is going on before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1 at Hapur and whenever the applicant goes to do pairvi in the case at Hapur, the opposite party no.2 along with her associates gives threat to life. It is next submitted that whenever the matter is taken up in the court, not only the opposite party no.2 but also as many as five advocates engaged by her creates hue and cry for being passed adverse orders against the applicant. It is further submitted that on 9.8.2019, the applicant and his parents were assaulted by Rajesh Goel, Gaurav Goel, Ankur Goel, Subhas and one another person regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged, which

¶24

6

¶25

was registered as Case Crime No.402 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294 I.P.C. at Police Station Pilakhuva, District Hapur. It is further submitted that on 25.11.2019, the applicant moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hapur regarding apprehension of threat to life at the behest of family members of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that on 3.3.2022, the applicant no.2 moved an application stating therein that one Advocate of Sessions Division, Hapur namely Satish Chandra @ Satish Kumar Mittal has taken entire fee, but he is not attending his case and also gives threat to the applicant not to pursue the case. It is further submitted that aforesaid advocate managed to lodge an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. through his colleague Vijay Pal Singh Gautam, Advocate, which was directed to be registered as complaint case vide order dated 19.8.2020. Thereafter, the aforesaid complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 11.12.2020 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hapur. It is further submitted that the aforesaid Advocate namely Satish Chandra has again lodged a first information report against the applicant and his parents, which was registered as Case Crime No.18 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Hapur Nagar, Hapur. It is next submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant has no hope of justice from the present court and if the aforesaid case is permitted to be continued in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Hapur, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and have submitted that the present application has been moved with

¶27

7

¶28

ulterior motive to delay the trial. It is further submitted that the present application has been moved on the basis of wrong facts. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a lady and is living along with her daughter at Hapur and if the case is transferred to any other district, it will cause undue hardship to her, therefore, the application seeking transfer of the aforesaid case deserves to be rejected.

¶29

The applicant is originally resident of 44 Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, North West, Delhi.

¶30

The instant transfer application has been moved by applicant Sahib Bansal under Section 407 Cr.P.C., which deals with transfer of criminal cases by High Court from one district to other district or from one court to another court in the same district. A resume of Section 407 Cr.P.C. may be mentioned as under:-

¶31

Here it is apposite to mention that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 407 Cr.P.C. a case can be transferred, whenever it is made to appear to High Court-

¶32

407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.

¶33

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-

¶34

(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

¶35

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, It may order-

¶36

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

¶37

(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;

¶38

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

¶39

(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.

¶40

(v) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative:

¶41

8

¶42

Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.

¶43

(3) Every application for an order under sub- section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.

¶44

(4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub- section (7).

¶45

(5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on of the merits of the application unless at least twenty- four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.

¶46

(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose: Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court' s power of remand under section 309.

¶47

(7) Where an application for an order under sub- section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶48

(8) When the High Court orders under sub- section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred.

¶49

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.

¶50

There is plethora of cases wherein the Apex court has on several occasions considered the issue of transfer of cases, in different circumstances and after elaborate discussion with reference to the circumstances of each case laid down guidelines in this behalf, which are cited as under:-

¶51

(i) Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, (ii) Vijay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1999 (9) SCC 67, (iii) Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374, (iv) Fatema Vs. Jafri Syed Husain @

¶52

9

¶53

Syed Parvez Jafferi, AIR 2009 SC 1773, (iv) Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167 , (vi) Abdul Nazar Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6 SCC 204 , (vii) K.P. Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. 1994 SCC (Cri) 712, (viii) K. Anbazhagan Vs. Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767, (ix) Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, (x) Captain Amarinder Singh Vs. Parkash Singh Badal and others (2009) 6 SCC 260, (xi) Nahar Singh Yadav and another Vs. Union of India and others JT 2010 (12) 641, (xii) Lalu Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 8 SCC 593, (xiii) Amit Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta 2014 (11) ADJ 414 (All.) and (xiv) Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2016) 3 SCC 370.

¶54

(i) In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (Supra) , the Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶55

"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy ‐ availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances."

¶56

(ii) In the case of Vijay Pal and others (Supra), the Apex Court has held that in absence of any justified reason, it is not proper and legal to exercise power under Section 407 Cr.P.C.

¶57

(iii) In the cases of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani (Supra) and Fatema Vs. Jafri Syed Husain @ Syed Parvez Jafferi (Supra), it is held in matrimonial cases the convenience of wife and in particular that she has no one in her family escort her to undertake a long journey, is a good ground for transfer of cases.

¶58

(iv) In Gurcharan Dass Chadha (Supra), the Apex Court held:-

¶59

10

¶60

"13. .....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 office. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge 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."

¶61

(v) In Abdul Nazar Madani (Supra) , the Apex Court observed as follows:-

¶62

"7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. 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 on 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."

¶63

(vi) In K.P. Tiwari (Supra) Apex court has held :-

¶64

11

¶65

"4....It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks - more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive."

¶66

(vii) In K. Anbazhagan (Supra), the Apex Court had held as follows:-

¶67

"30. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner."

¶68

(viii) In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (Supra), the Apex court propounded that fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.

¶69

(ix) In the case of Captain Amarinder Singh (Supra) , the Apex Court while dealing with two transfer applications preferred under section 406 of the Code, on the ground that with the change in State Government, the trial was suffering setback due to the influence of the new Chief Minister as also the lack of interest by the Public Prosecutor, has observed in paras 18, 19 and 20 as follows:-

¶70

"18. For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. It is one of the principles of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. On the other hand, mere allegations that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. In other words, the court

¶71

12

¶72

has further to see whether apprehension alleged is a reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.

¶73

19.Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C.

¶74

20. However, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. The apprehension must appear to the Court to be a reasonable one."

¶75

(x) In the case of Nahar Singh Yadav and another (Supra), the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

¶76

"Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:-

¶77

(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

¶78

(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

¶79

(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

¶80

(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed

¶81

13

¶82

by the accused; and

¶83

(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice."

¶84

(xi) In Lalu Prasad (Supra) , Apex court has observed as under:-

¶85

"20. Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of the Constitution. It demands that a Judge who presides over the trial, the Public Prosecutor who presents the case on behalf of the State and the lawyer vis-a-vis amicus curiae who represents the accused must work together in harmony in the public interest of justice uninfluenced by the personality of the accused or those managing the affairs of the State. They must ensure that their working does not lead to creation of conflict between justice and jurisprudence. A person whether he is a judicial officer or a Public Prosecutor or a lawyer defending the accused should always uphold the dignity of their high office with a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no circumstance gets devalued. The public interest demands that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair and independent."

¶86

(xii) This Court in case of Amit Agarwal (Supra), considering the scope of transfer in such a matter has held that:-

¶87

"24. Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise. (Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Gujarat 63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26)

¶88

25. Where a transfer is sought making allegations regarding integrity or influence etc. in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer.

¶89

26. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If

¶90

14

¶91

the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice."

¶92

(xiii) The Apex Court in case of Usmangani Adambhai Vahora (Supra), considering the previous judgments of the Supreme Court has held:-

¶93

"Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. There has to be a real apprehension that there would be miscarriage of justice."

¶94

On the basis of the law enunciated and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the legal scenario emerges may be summarized as under:- A free and fair trial sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also established principle of law in dispensation of justice is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If criminal trial is not free and fair, criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and rule of law. A fair trial means a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of the judicial calm. Fair trial also means in which bias or prejudice for or against the party or witness.

¶95

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that the applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for transferring the Sessions Trial No.19 of 2020 (State Vs. Manju Bansal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.567 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Pilakhuva, District Hapur, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court

¶96

15

¶97

No.1, Hapur. The application is frivolous, vexatious and deserves to be rejected.

¶98

The present transfer application is accordingly, rejected. Order Date :21.3.2023 Rmk

¶99

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manju Bansal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Bansal and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premlata Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anil Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babbli and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another