Dismissed¶¶16

Satpal Yadav v. Rajesh

Delhi HC22 Apr 2025TR.P.(CRL.)/26/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Satpal Yadav v. Rajesh; Delhi High Court; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula; TR.P.(CRL.) 26/2025 with CRL.M.A. 11845/2025 and CRL.M.A. 11846/2025; transfer petition (criminal); maintenance petition MT Case No. 286/2024; Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts; intra-district / same sessions division transfer; proviso Section 447(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS); prerequisite application to Sessions Judge and rejection; petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to pursue BNSS remedy; order dated 22.04.2025 (April 22, 2025).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty ('with liberty as aforesaid') for the Petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy provided under the BNSS. ¶¶16

Satpal Yadav Vs Rajesh — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty ('with liberty as aforesaid') for the Petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy provided under the BNSS.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court could entertain the present petition seeking transfer of maintenance case No. MT Case No. 286/2024 to another Court within the same district, given the proviso to Section 447(2) of the BNSS barring applications to the High Court for transfers between Criminal Courts in the same sessions division unless such application was first made to, and rejected by, the Sessions Judge.

¶¶10

Court's answer

As recited by this Court, the proviso to Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

In light of the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS, counsel for the Petitioner stated that she would withdraw the present petition and take recourse to the appropriate remedy provided under the BNSS.

¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.; Order dated 22.04.2025) in TR.P.(CRL.) 26/2025 — Satpal Yadav sought transfer of maintenance case No. MT Case No. 286/2024 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts to another Court within the same district. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that no application lies to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. In light of this, counsel for the Petitioner elected to withdraw the petition; it was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy under the BNSS.

Satpal Yadav v. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Yadav v. Rajesh

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

Similar cases

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Aabid and Anr.

N Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary Home & Ors.

Vijendra Diwach Vs State and Ors.

Prashant Sharma Vs Ruby Gupta @ Ruby Kumari

Madhuri Kumar Vs Karan Kapoor

Kanika Sahni Vs Sunita Thukral

Isha Mehta Vs Abhishek Sharma & Ors.

Barbee Chauhan Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohan Gupta Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Binod Kumar Goswami Vs Sharda Goswami

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Revolution Clothing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Karanjeet Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Pawan & Ors. Vs Govt. of N.C.T.of Delhi & Anr.