Anju Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 24 of 2024

Anju Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Pooja Singh, Abhishek Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Arpit Shukla, Atul Verma, Himanshu Tiwari

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.D. Bhatt, the learned AGA-I appearing for the State and Sri Atul Verma assisted by Sri Himanshu Tiwari, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶10

By means of the instant application filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking transfer of Complaint Case No. 13706/2022 titled Saurabh Singh v. Amar Singh & Ors., from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya to a competent court in District Basti.

¶11

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2-Saurabh Singh against (1) Amar Singh, (2) Ashish Singh, (3) Ajeet Singh, (4) Amit Singh, (5) Smt. Priyanka Singh and (6) Smt. Amar Singh, none of whom has been impleaded in this transfer petition. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned summoned the aforesaid six named accused persons as also the petitioner, who was not named in the complaint, by means of an order dated 10.03.2021.

¶12

Six accused persons challenged the summoning order dated 10.03.2021 by filing Criminal Revision No. 155/2021 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad and the matter was remanded for being decided afresh. The judgment and order dated 10.03.2021 was set

¶13

TACR No. 24 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

aside on the ground that the revisionists no. 5 & 6 were government servants and Gazette Officers, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence against them. After remand, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed a fresh order dated 27.07.2023 summoning (1) Amar Singh, (2) Ashish Singh, (3) Smt. Priyanka Singh, (4) Smt. Urmila Singh and (5) Smt. Anju Singh to face trial for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Amar Singh, Ashish Singh, Smt. Priyanka Singh, Smt. Urmila Singh and Smt. Anju Singh, who are also facing trial in the case which is sought to be transferred through petition have not been impleaded in this transfer petition whereas they will be affected in case the transfer application is allowed. Therefore, the transfer application suffers from the defect of non-joinder of parties.

¶16

The ground for transfer pleaded in the petition is that the opposite party no. 2 and his family members are consistently threatening to kill the petitioner and her family members and they are pressurising her to withdraw the case lodged by the petitioner and her family members.

¶17

The opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit wherein the case instituted from the side of the petitioner against her husband and his family members have been given in a tabular form in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. As per which six cases have been filed against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members including Case Crime No. 355/2019, under Sections 323/504/ 506/ 406/ 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, Case Crime No. 841/2019, in this case Section 307/120B IPC has also been added. Case Crime No. 841/2019, under Sections 111/ 151/ 107/ 116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Maholi, District Sant Kabir Nagar; Complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Basti; a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Basti; Case Crime No. 179/2020, under Sections 323/ 504/ 506/ 352 IPC, Police Station Maholi, District Sant Kabir Nagar; Case Crime No. 759/2020, under Sections 323/ 504/ 506/ 392 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's husband had to remain in jail for about 20 days in connection with Case Crime No. 357/2019 and

¶18

TACR No. 24 of 2024

¶19

3

¶20

the husband's brother Saurabh Singh (opposite party no. 2) also remained in jail for 10 days. Father of the petitioner no. 2 also remained incarcerated for 7 days. Wife of opposite party no. 2 Sweta Singh and his sister Vibha Singh were also sent to jail for 1 day. The petitioner's husband was again sent to jail when Section 120B was added. In Case Crime No. 841/2019, under Sections 111/ 151/ 107/ 116 Cr.P.C., the petitioner's husband and opposite party no. 2 remained in jail for 14 days and the opposite party no. 2 Saurabh Singh also remained in jail for 14 days. The father of the husband also remained in jail for 4 days. The counter affidavit states that these facts indicate that influence was being exerted by the petitioner and her family members.

¶21

It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's brother is practicing as an Advocate at District Basti. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the opposite party no. 2 and his family members are influential persons and his uncle is practicing as an Advocate at District Ayodhya. He is former Vice President of the Ayodhya Bar Association. The opposite party no. 2 had made a suggestion that since there are numerous cases instituted from both the sides against each other, he would have no objection in case all the cases are transferred to a neutral place, say to Lucknow. The learned counsel for the petitioner obtained instructions in this regard from the petitioner and she stated that the elders of the family of the petitioner are not agreeable to this suggestion. The aforesaid case put forward a sorry state of affairs where matrimonial bickering have taken such an ugly turn that both the sides are involved in a battle against each other by instituting numerous cases. Both the learned counsel have submitted that the matter has been referred to the Mediation Centre on three occasions and it failed every time. The allegation of influence has been levelled by both the sides against each other. One family member on both the sides is a practicing advocate at Basti and at Ayodhya. The allegation of influence is vague. Although it is alleged that the petitioner's brother was threatened at Ayodhya, this allegation is also vague and it does not contain sufficient particulars so as to inspire confidence.

¶22

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the petitioner has no good ground to get the case transferred.

¶23

TACR No. 24 of 2024

¶24

4

¶25

The transfer application is rejected .

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

May 25, 2026

¶28

Pradeep/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anju Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anthony vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahira Ali (Minor) Thru. Her Mother Shama Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Alok Kumar Agrahari Alias Babloo vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Arman vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Jyoti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shahajad Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others