The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order allowing transfer of a case. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the relief had already been granted by transferring the case from Rohru to Jubbal via order under Section 408 Cr.PC.
Criminal revision petition dismissed for lack of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.R. No. 26 of 2023 Date of Decision: 10.3.2023
| _____________________________________________________________________ Satya Pal Bhatwan. ……...Petiti Versus |
|---|
| State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. |
……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
| For the Petitioner: | Mr. B.N. Sharma and Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocates. |
|---|---|
| For the Respondents: _________________________ |
Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. __________________________________________________ |
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC, lays challenge to judgment dated 9.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby an application filed under Section 408 of Cr.PC, by the petitioner-accused for transfer of the case No. RBT No.33-2 of 2018 from the Court of learned JMFC, Rohru to Shimla or some other court for trial and disposal, came to be allowed.
2
2. Precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that though petitioner had requested for transfer of the case from the court of learned JMFC-2 Rohru to Shimla, but learned Sessions Judge transferred the case from the court of learned JMFC-2, Rohru to the court of learned JMFC, Jubbal.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respective clients, submit that present petition is not maintainable because relief, as prayed for in the instant petition, already stands granted in favour of the petitioner. Above named counsel state that learned Sessions judge having taken note of the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner has already transferred the case from the court of learned JMFC Rohru to JMFC-2 Jubbal, where definitely there is no resolution passed by the Bar Members not to defend the case of the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this Court finds that accused filed an application under Section 408 Cr.PC in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, seeking transfer of the cace as detailed herein above, on the ground that there are 6-7 pending cases against them at Rohru and Bar Association at Rohru has passed a resolution for not putting in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-accused. They also
3
claimed before the court below that since litigants are practicing advocates, there is no likelihood of them getting fair trial.
5. Learned Sessions judge, having taken note of the aforesaid apprehensions of the petitioner, transferred the case from the court at Rohru to the court at Jubbal. Sine relief as prayed for in the instant petition stands already granted, it is not understood that why present petition has been filed. At this stage, it is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had requested to transfer the case from court at Rohru to Shimla. Though no specific prayer was made by the petitioner to transfer his case from Rohru court to Shimla, but even otherwise, decision if any, with regard to transfer of the case is /was to be taken by the learned District and Sessions Judge and in that regard, persons seeking transfer cannot be allowed to dictate his/her terms.
6. Having taken note of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, learned District and Sessions Judge has already ordered the transfer of the case from JMFC Rohru to JMFC Jubbal, but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case trial is allowed to continue in the court at Jubbal, rather it would be convenient for the petitioner to come to Jubbal from Rohru, which is hardly 25 kms away from Rohru.
4
7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is
dismissed being devoid of any merits.
March 10, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC challenging the order of transfer is maintainable when the sought relief has already been granted?
Whether the learned District and Sessions Judge has the discretion to determine the destination court for transfer of a case?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satya Pal Bhatwan
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
