Dismissed¶17

Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025TACR/76/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 407 CrPC transfer application dismissed; transfer of criminal case out of district refused; accused being practicing advocate not a ground for transfer; no post of Nazir in CJM court; false averment in affidavit; complainant also an advocate; CJM Ayodhya/Faizabad; Case Crime No.0213 of 2022; F.I.R. No.57 of 2022; Sections 302, 504 IPC; P.S. Cantt.

What did the court decide?

Merely because one of the accused persons is a practicing Advocate does not give rise to a ground for transfer of the case out of the District, more particularly when the complainant himself is also a practicing Advocate. ¶12

Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 76 of 2025

¶3

Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) : Counsel for Applicant(s) Pankaj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.P. Singh, the learned State Counsel.

¶10

By means of the instant application filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for transfer of Crl. Misc. Case No.328 of 2022, titled Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla vs. Devendra Kumar and Ors . arising out of Case Crime No.0213 of 2022, F.I.R. No.57 of 2022 under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station- Cantt, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad, pending in the Court of CJM, Ayodhya/Faizabad to any other Court of competent and equal jurisdiction in a District outside Ayodhya within the State of U.P.

¶11

The applicant is the complainant in the aforesaid case and the transfer has been sought on the ground that one of the accused person is a practicing Advocate and his uncle is a Nazir in the Court of the Presiding Officer. The complainant himself is an Advocate. He is aware that there is no post of Nazir in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and it appears that the false averment has been made in para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the application to give false colour to the case.

¶12

Merely because one of the accused persons is a practicing Advocate, does not give rise to a ground for transfer of the case

¶13

TACR No. 76 of 2025

¶14

¶15

out of the District, more particularly, when the complainant is also a practicing Advocate and the allegation that the uncle of an accused is a Nazir in the Court of the Presiding Officer, is also false.

¶16

In these circumstances, there is no ground for transferring the case out of the District.

¶17

. 6. The transfer application is hereby dismissed

¶18

September 9, 2025

¶19

-Amit K-

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajeev Kumar Singh @ Rajeev Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Arshad Ali and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Harjit Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another