Dismissed

Mohan Lal Son of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2024CRLTP/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a Sessions case from Gangapur City to Bharatpur citing elderly witnesses and alleged threats. The Court found that since the charge was framed and prosecution evidence had commenced, transfer was not permissible regardless of inconvenience, citing established Supreme Court precedents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohan Lal Son of Ramji Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:43493]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 13/2024

¶4

Mohan Lal Son Of Ramji Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Sikari, Ps Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Mukesh Son Of Late Sh. Raghusaran, Resident Of Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.R. Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

17/10/2024

¶14

Instant transfer application is preferred by petitionercomplainant to transfer a sessions case No. 4/2023, arising out of FIR No. 480/2022 registered at P.S. Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur from learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Gangapur City to any Court at Bharatpur.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the age of petitioner and other 6-7 witnesses is more than 60 years and it is inconvenient for them to travel from their place of residence to 180 Kms i.e. Gangapur City, to depose in Sessions case. He further submits that the petitioner and other witnesses are facing threatening from respondent No.2 and his family members for not deposing against him. He further submits that he has a good

[2024:RJ-JP:43493]

[CRLTP-13/2024]

(2 of 3)

ground to seek transfer from Gangapur City to any Court at Bharatpur.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the ground that on each and every date respondent No.2 is appearing before the Trial Court and despite service of summons the petitioner and his witnesses are not appearing to depose in the matter which is causing a delay. He further referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baljit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1558 and Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 680 and submits that the grounds raised by petitioner are not sufficient to transfer a sessions case where charge has already been framed and fixed for prosecution evidence. He further submits that Court trying the case is competent to try the sessions case arising out in the jurisdiction of P.S. Gangapur City, therefore, the case cannot be transferred on the grounds raised by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. We have gone through the grounds as raised by the petitioner. Learned Trial Court has already opened-up the case after framing of charge against respondent No.2. The order-sheet placed on record clearly reflects that the Trial Court has summoned the witnesses and till date PW-1 Dr. Bani Madhav was already examined by the prosecution.

[2024:RJ-JP:43493]

[CRLTP-13/2024]

(3 of 3)

In facts and circumstances of the case, looking to principle of law as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Baljit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (supra) and Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari & Anr. (supra) I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case wherein sessions case can be transferred from the Court having jurisdiction to any other Court of another district.

¶25

In view of aforesaid, the convenience is not a ground to transfer a sessions case particularly looking to the fact that Video Conferencing facility is also available in the State and also there is a protection of witness scheme applicable in the State, to protect witness.

¶26

Hence, the transfer petition is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶28

MONU/32

Mohan Lal Son of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohan Lal Son of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Yadav Son of Sunillal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand @ Kalu Son of Sawantaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Panna Lal S/O Kishna Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramgopal Sharma Vs Ramesh Kumar Jalan S/O Sh. Laxminarayan Jalan

Dhunkalram S/O Nathuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Roy @ Lali Son of Shri Sarbjeet Rai Vs State of Rajasthan