Dismissed

Vidya Bhushan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2023CR.R/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a transfer order. The court held that since the trial court already transferred the case to a different location (Jubbal) based on the accused's apprehensions regarding biased defense at Rohru, the petition was devoid of merit and not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Vidya Bhushan Vs State of Hp — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.R. No. 27 of 2023 Date of Decision: 10.3.2023

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Vidya Bhushan and Ors. ……...Petitio Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr

¶4

……...Petitioners Versus

¶5

…....Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Petitioners:	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. __________________________________________________

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

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 petitioners-accused for transfer of the case No. RBT No.36-2 of 2018 from the Court of learned JMFC, Rohru to Shimla or some other court for trial and disposal, came to be allowed.

¶11

¶12

2. Precise grouse of the petitioners, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that though petitioners 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.

¶13

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 petitioners. Above named counsel state that learned Sessions judge having taken note of the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners 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 petitioners.

¶14

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 petitioners-accused. They also

¶15

¶16

claimed before the court below that since litigants are practicing advocates, there is no likelihood of them getting fair trial.

¶17

5. Learned Sessions judge, having taken note of the aforesaid apprehensions of the petitioners, 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 petitioners that petitioners had requested to transfer the case from court at Rohru to Shimla. Though no specific prayer was made by the petitioners to transfer their 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.

¶18

6. Having taken note of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners, 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 petitioners to come to Jubbal from Rohru, which is hardly 25 kms away from Rohru.

¶19

¶20

7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is

¶21

dismissed being devoid of any merits.

¶22

March 10, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Vidya Bhushan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Bhushan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar Lal Vs Panchu deceased through her Lrs. Smt. Chander Mani

Gulzari Lal (Since Deceased Throgh LRs Mahinder Kaur and Anr) Vs Vinod Kumar

Chand Thakur Vs Vinod Kumar Mehta and Another

Oriental Insur. Vs Hajra Begum

Satya Pal Bhatwan Vs State of Hp

Satya Pal Bhatwan Vs State of Hp