Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 65 of 2024

Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Surya Narayan Mishra

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Ajay Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.D. Bhatt, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Dipak Singh Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Surya Narayan Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and perused the records.

¶10

By means of the instant application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought transfer of Case No.8730 of 2020: State Vs. Anshuman and others, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.683 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich from the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Women) Bahraich to the competent court at District Gonda.

¶11

The matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court by means of an order dated 28.11.2024. On 17.02.2025 the Mediation Centre submitted a report stating that the parties have arrived at a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement dated 17.02.2025 is available on record, which has duly been signed by the parties and their counsel. It was recorded in the settlement agreement that the parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage by filing a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Gonda before31.03.2025.

¶12

TACR No. 65 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opposite party has breached the settlement entered into before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and has not appeared to file a suit for divorce.

¶15

The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 also states that the said opposite parties are not communicating with their counsel.

¶16

In these circumstances, the court proceeds to decide the transfer application on its merits.

¶17

It has been stated in the transfer application that the aforesaid criminal case has been instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner stating that she was harassed for demanding dowry. The allegation was established during investigation and thereafter the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet dated 15.01.2020. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 were enlarged on bail on 31.07.2023. The transfer application states that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have repetitively been extending threats to the petitioner so as to desist her from pursuing her case at Bahraich. The petitioner has stated that she is a lady who fears going outside and she would not be able to attend the proceedings at Bahraich which is about 70 kms. from the place of her residence. It has also been stated in the transfer application that the opposite party no.3 is an advocate practicing in district court at Bahraich.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed an apprehension of proceedings of the case being influenced by the opposite party no.3.

¶19

The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have chosen not to file any counter affidavit and therefore the aforesaid averments made in the transfer application remained unrebutted.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the conduct of the opposite party no.2 in not honouring the settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this court on 17.02.2025, the transfer application is allowed . Case No.8730 of 2020: State Vs.

¶21

TACR No. 65 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

Anshuman and others, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.683 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich is hereby transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Women) Bahraich to the competent court at District Gonda.

¶24

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to District and Sessions Judge, Bahraich and District and Sessions Judge, Gonda for ascertaining necessary compliance.

¶25

April 21, 2026 Ram.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

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

Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Shankar Soni @ Pappu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office

Asgar Ali Jabir Ali Khan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Kajal Verma Thru. Her Husband Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mamta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kumari Tisha Singh Thru. Her Father Shri Mukul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others