Dismissed¶17

Munendrapal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026NA528/9583/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed by Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J., March 18, 2026); transfer application for joint trial of cross-cases rightly rejected by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur; material variation in place of occurrence between FIRs; informant of one case not accused in the other; not cross-versions of same incident; S.T. no. 1439 of 2024 and S.T. no. 1151 of 2024; Case Crime nos. 375 and 381 of 2024, PS Roja, Shahjahanpur; IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

This Court found that the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur had assigned cogent and valid reasons while rejecting the transfer application vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2025. ¶15

Munendrapal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.5.2025 of the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur rejecting the transfer application seeking joint trial of S.T. no. 1439 of 2024 and S.T. no. 1151 of 2024 was passed without applying judicial mind and is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶13

Court's answer

This Court found that the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur had assigned cogent and valid reasons while rejecting the transfer application vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2025.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The trial court specifically recorded that there is material variation in the place of occurrence in the two FIRs and that the informant of one case has not been made an accused in the other; accordingly, the two cases cannot be treated as cross-cases arising out of the same incident.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since the foundational requirement that both cases be cross-versions of the same occurrence was not satisfied, the learned Sessions Judge rightly declined the prayer for transfer and joint trial; the trial court's view was in consonance with the settled legal position and suffered from no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 29.5.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Crl. Misc. Case no. 244 of 2025 (in S.T. no. 1439 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime no. 375 of 2024, PS Roja) rejecting a transfer application seeking joint trial of S.T. no. 1439 of 2024 (IPC case) and S.T. no. 1151 of 2024 (Case Crime no. 381 of 2024, IPC and SC/ST Act case): HELD, dismissing the application, that the Sessions Judge had assigned cogent and valid reasons; the trial court recorded material variation in the place of occurrence in the two FIRs and that the informant of one case was not an accused in the other, so the two cases could not be treated as cross-cases arising out of the same incident; the foundational requirement of cross-versions of the same occurrence being absent, refusal of transfer and joint trial involved no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9583 of 2026

¶3

Munendrapal Singh And Another

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manvendra Singh, Pinki Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 75

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

¶8

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash order dated 29.5.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Crl. Misc. Case no. 244 of 2025 in S.T. no. 1439 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Roja, District Shahajahanpur.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 lodged an FIR against applicant no. 1 along with 6 other named accused persons, which was registered as Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 under sections 323, 506, 504, 307, 149, 148, 147 IPC, PS- Roja, Distirct Shahjahanpur. However, applicant no. 2 was not named in the FIR, it is alleged that he was later on implicated in the said case because he has lodged another FIR bearing Case Crime no. 381 of 2024 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 IPC, and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, PS- Roja, District Shahjahanpur on dated 28.6.2024 against opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons. After conclusion of investigation in both the aforesaid cases, trial proceedings started in shape of Session Trial no. 1439 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 6, Shahjahanpur and Session Trial no. 1151 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 381 of 2024 before learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.)Act, Court no. 2, Shahajahanpur.

¶10

NA528 No. 9583 of 2026

¶11

¶12

Applicant no. 2 moved a transfer application before learned court of Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur seeking trial proceeding in both the aforesaid cases be conducted in a single court. The application moved at the behest of applicant no. 2 was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.5.2025 which has been challenged through instant application.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur without applying judicial mind has rejected the transfer application. The impugned order dated 29.5.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application.

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has assigned cogent and valid reasons while rejecting the transfer application vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025. The trial court has specifically recorded a finding that there is material variation in the place of occurrence in both the FIRs and further that the informant of one case has not been made an accused in the other case. In such circumstances, the two cases cannot be treated as crosscases arising out of the same incident.

¶16

In the present case, since the foundational requirement of both cases being cross versions of the same occurrence is not satisfied, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly declined the prayer for transfer and joint trial. The view taken by the trial court is in consonance with the settled legal position and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .

¶18

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶19

March 18, 2026 Shaswat

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munendrapal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendrapal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Yadav Urf Tuntun and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rev. Fr. Vineet Vincent Pereira Alias Father Vineet Vinicent Paresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Narayan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev and Another vs State of U.P. and Another