Dismissed¶51

Smt. Ritu Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2026TACR/44/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of criminal case; TACR; Section 447 BNSS; transfer application by wife/complainant; Raebareli to Hardoi; 195 kms distance; financial constraints ground false — applicant teacher at Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay; concealment and misstatement of facts; clean hands doctrine; Anjali Ashok Sidhwani (2009) 16 SCC 188 distinguished; Sonam Rai 2023 SCC OnLine All 4344 distinguished; V. Chandrasekaran (2012) 12 SCC 133 relied on; cooked-up threat story; mediation refused; dowry/DV proceedings; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The transfer application lacks merit and is dismissed. ¶51

Smt. Ritu Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether Case No. 13990 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2025), instituted by the applicant and pending before the CJM, Raebareli, should be transferred to the CJM, Hardoi on the grounds of financial constraints and threats by the accused. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The transfer application lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Anjali Ashok Sidhwani (SC) affords no benefit to the applicant: unlike that case (~900 kms, no family member to escort the wife), the Raebareli–Hardoi distance is merely 195 kms and it is not her case that no family member can escort her.

¶28

Key takeaways

The plea of inability to attend proceedings at Raebareli due to financial constraints is false and baseless, since the applicant is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi (Awasiya Balika) Vidyalay, Hardoi — a fact she concealed in the transfer application.ratio¶26
The alleged threatening incident appears to be a cooked-up story created merely to manufacture a ground for transfer: the presence of five other persons was omitted from the transfer application, the date of the incident (06.03.2026 vs 07.03.2026) is discrepant, and there is no independent witness or medical report.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Application (Criminal) under Section 447 BNSS by the complainant-wife seeking transfer of Case No. 13990 of 2025 (Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mill Area, Raebareli) from the CJM, Raebareli to the CJM, Hardoi on grounds of financial constraints and threats — DISMISSED. Reliance on Anjali Ashok Sidhwani (2009) 16 SCC 188 and Sonam Rai (2023 SCC OnLine All 4344) held inapplicable: Raebareli–Hardoi distance is merely 195 kms, a family member is available to escort her, and unlike Sonam Rai the applicant is a working teacher who concealed her employment at Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi while pleading poverty; her account of a threatening incident suffered from date discrepancy, omission of material facts and absence of independent witness or medical support, and appeared cooked up. Following V. Chandrasekaran (2012) 12 SCC 133 on approach to court with clean hands, the Court held the applicant made concealment and misstatements. Last-minute prayer for mediation also rejected: mediation is possible in her pending DV Act complaint and no fruitful purpose would be served given unclean hands.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 44 of 2026

Smt. Ritu Tripathi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	S.K. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.
A.F.R.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri S. K. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishal Agarwal, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶10

By means of the instant application filed under Section 447, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has sought transfer of Case No.13990 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.

¶11

It has been pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant got married to the opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli. She stayed at her sasural for about 1 ½ months. Thereafter she went to her maternal house at Hardoi and returned after 15 days. She kept visiting her maternal house with the consent of the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 4 is working as a tube-well operator at District Jaunpur, but his family resides at Raibareli. After sometime, her husband and his family members started illtreating her for demanding dowry. She was beaten up on 16.03.2025 and she lodged an F.I.R. on 18.03.2025 against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband (the opposite parties no.

¶12

TACR No. 44 of 2026

¶13

¶14

2 to 4 respectively) and the husband’s sister Ritika Tripathi.

¶15

The allegations levelled against Ritika Tripathi could not be established in investigation and a charge-sheet dated 15.04.2025 was filed only against the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 06.08.2025.

¶16

The applicant has alleged that the accused persons have been enlarged on bail and during that, when the applicant and her brother opposed the bail application, they were threatened by the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. The applicant and her brother were gheroed and threatened for withdrawing the case when they had gone to attend the date fixed on 06.03.2026 and they were forced to leave without meeting their Counsel.

¶17

On 09.03.2026, the applicant has sent a complaint to the police stating that while she was going to attend the proceedings of the case, the opposite party no. 2 and 4 and five other unknown persons stopped and abused them and they had beaten them up with kicks and fists and threatened to kill them, unless they entered into a compromise.

¶18

The applicant has filed Complaint No. 2913 of 2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. Mahila, Hardoi.

¶19

The applicant has pleaded that she is unable to take part in the proceedings in the Court of CJM Raibareli due to financial constraints and threats of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the FIR lodged by her and a copy of some extracts of the case diary. It contains a narration of her medical examination report dated 16.03.2025, which mentions an abrasion of 1cmX0.5cm, 2 cm below right eye and restricted movement of right thumb. The injuries were opined to be simple in nature and the duration of injury was one day.

¶21

Copies of the statements of the applicant, her brother and the land-lord of the house which was the applicant’s matrimonial home at Raibareli, have also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. The applicant and her brother reiterated the FIR version but the landlord has stated that the applicant is working in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi. The opposite party no.4 is working as

¶22

TACR No. 44 of 2026

¶23

¶24

Operator in Tube-well Department at Jaunpur. The other accused Ritika Tripathi had got married on 11.12.2020. She has not stayed with the applicant at any point of time and she has falsely been implicated.

¶25

It is relevant to note that the applicant has stated in para 6 of the application that her husband (the opposite party no.4) is working as a tube well operator at Jaunpur and he is permanent resident of District Raebareli. She has stated that she was forced to leave her matrimonial house at Raebareli and having no other place to live she has taken shelter at her brother's house at District Hardoi. However, while she stated that she is unable to attend the proceedings of the case at District Raebaeli due to financial constraints, she did not disclose her financial status and the source of earning.

¶26

It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit that the applicant is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalay, Hardoi. Therefore, the averment made in the transfer application that the applicant will not be able to attend the proceedings due to financial constraints, is false and baseless.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the above stated facts make out a case for transfer of the criminal case instituted by the applicant at Raibareli to Hardoi. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani : (2009) 16 SCC 188, and a decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Sonam Rai v. State of U.P. : 2023 SCC OnLine All 4344.

¶28

In Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court has transferred the proceedings of the a suit from the Family Court at Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai keeping in view the distance between the two places which was about 900 kms and there was nobody in the family of the wife who could escort her from Mumbai to Indore for attending the cases. In the present case, the applicant is seeking transfer of the case from Raebareli to Hardoi and the distance between the two cities is merely 195 kms. The applicant has stated that she has taken shelter of house of her brother and it is not her case that there is no one in her family of the applicant who can escort her from Hardoi to

¶29

TACR No. 44 of 2026

¶30

¶31

Raebareli. Therefore, the applicant cannot get any benefit from the order in the case of Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani (supra) because of the difference in the facts of the two cases.

¶32

The case of Sonam Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) arose from an application for transfer the entire proceedings of a Criminal Case instituted on a complaint filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act filed on 27.08.2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Inspite of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. having been recorded, the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 had not been summoned till decision of the transfer application on 04.04.2023. The applicant was originally a resident of District Azamgarh and at the time of filing the transfer application, she was residing at District Mau while the opposite party no. 2 (husband) was a resident of District Azamgarh. The coordinate Bench allowed the transfer application on the following submissions: -

¶33

“ 14. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is a poor lady having no source of income and depends upon the income of her father, who also bears the liability of other family members. The applicant herself has a minor daughter aged about four years. The father of the applicant is an old person who is unable to attend the court on every date with the applicant and in absence of him, the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 regularly threatened her, when she goes to attend the court alone. Thus, life of the applicant is not safe in view of the previous conduct of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Due to fear of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 as well as their family members, she could not face the trial in District Azamgarh. In these circumstances, there is apprehension to her life keeping in view the previous conduct of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have good relation with anti social elements and they are waiting the occasion to take revenge from the applicant if she goes to Azamgarh for doing pairvi of the case in question. She is also not able to bear the expenses of pairvi of the case.”

¶34

In the present case, the applicant has pleaded in the transfer application that she got married to the opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli, she stayed at her sasural for about 1 ½ months only. Although she has stated that the opposite party no. 4 is working as a tube-well operator at District Jaunpur, the applicant has concealed the fact that she is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi.

¶35

TACR No. 44 of 2026

¶36

¶37

The applicant has pleaded that she kept visiting her maternal house at Hardoi, but this pleading appears to be false, as a person working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi has to reside at Hardoi to be available there permanently.

¶38

While serving at Hardoi, the applicant herself filed the FIR at Raibareli regarding the offences that had allegedly committed at Raibareli. She had leveled allegations against her married sister-inlaw Ritika Tripathi, which were found to be false in investigation.

¶39

While concealing the fact that the applicant is working as an assistant teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi, she has pleaded in the transfer application that she will not be able to attend the proceedings due to financial constraints. Apparently this plea is false and baseless, as a teacher working in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay cannot claim that she cannot attend the proceedings initiated by herself at District Raibareli because of financial constraints.

¶40

The other ground taken in the transfer application is that the applicant and her brother were threatened by the accused persons on the date fixed on 06.03.2026. However, in the complaint dated 09.03.2026 sent to the police, the applicant stated that while she was going to attend the proceedings of the case on 07.03.2026, the opposite party no. 2 and 4 and five other unknown persons had stopped and abused them and they had beaten them up with kicks and fists and had threatened to kill them.

¶41

The presence of five other persons has not been mentioned in the transfer application. The discrepancy in the date of the incident is also relevant to be noted. There is no independent witness of the incident. There is no medical report to support the allegations. From these facts, it appears that the applicant has cooked up a story merely to create a ground for transfer.

¶42

Any person should approach a Court of law with clean hands and should not conceal or suppress any fact and should not make any misstatement of facts. In V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer : (2012) 12 SCC 133, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -

¶43

“ 44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach

¶44

TACR No. 44 of 2026

¶45

¶46

the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity . The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another….”

¶47

(Emphasis added)

¶48

As has been noted above, the applicant has made both concealment and mis-statement of facts in the transfer application and yet she has failed to make out a ground for transfer of the criminal case filed by herself at Raibareli, to Hardoi.

¶49

The learned Counsel for the applicant lastly requested that there is a possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute through the process of mediation and for this purpose, notice be issued to the opposite party. Mediation between the parties is possible in the pending case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act also and it is not necessary to multiply the proceedings and fora merely for making a reference to the mediation and conciliation center of this Court.

¶50

Moreover, there would only be a chance of success in the mediation when the parties participate with clean hands, a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. It appears that no fruitful purpose will be served by referring the dispute to mediation when the applicant has approached this Court by making concealment and misstatements of facts.

¶51

For the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the transfer application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶52

April 16, 2026 Ram.

¶53

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶54

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Pending criminal trial — Case No. 13990 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2025 (P.S. Mill Area, Raebareli), cognizance taken on 06.08.2025 — whose transfer from the CJM, Raebareli to the CJM, Hardoi was sought by the complainant-wife.¶10
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli · 06.08.2025
Prior proceeding
Applicant married opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli.¶11
Prior proceeding
Applicant allegedly beaten on 16.03.2025; she lodged an FIR on 18.03.2025 against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband (opposite parties nos. 2 to 4) and the husband's sister Ritika Tripathi.¶11
Prior proceeding
Allegations against Ritika Tripathi not established; charge-sheet dated 15.04.2025 filed only against opposite parties nos. 2 to 4; Magistrate took cognizance on 06.08.2025.¶15
Prior proceeding
Accused enlarged on bail; applicant and her brother allegedly threatened when they opposed the bail application.¶16
Prior proceeding
Alleged incident of 06.03.2026: applicant and her brother gheraoed and threatened to withdraw the case when attending the fixed date, forcing them to leave without meeting their counsel.¶16
Prior proceeding
Complaint dated 09.03.2026 sent to police alleging that opposite parties nos. 2 and 4 with five unknown persons stopped, abused, assaulted and threatened to kill the applicant and her brother to force a compromise.¶17
Prior proceeding
Medical examination report dated 16.03.2025 annexed with supplementary affidavit: simple injuries, one-day duration.¶20
Prior proceeding
Statements annexed: applicant and brother reiterated FIR version; landlord stated applicant works in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi, and that accused Ritika Tripathi married on 11.12.2020 and never stayed with the applicant, having been falsely implicated.¶24
Prior proceeding
Applicant filed Complaint No. 2913 of 2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Mahila, Hardoi.¶18

Smt. Ritu Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ritu Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singar Prajapati Alias R.S. Prajapati vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home, New Dlehi and Another

Kamlesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

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

Master Suryabhan Singh Thru. His Grand Father Virendra Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vishal Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. and Another