Dismissed

Javed v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC2 Apr 2013C482/289/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand, in a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., rejected the applicant's challenge to the refusal of transferring a criminal trial from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee. The Court held the order rejecting transfer passed by the Sessions Judge Haridwar had no legal infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed summarily as it lacked merit.

Javed Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 289 of 2013 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Javed

..….…… Applicant

versus

State of Uttarakhand & another ………. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the petitioner/applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned AGA, present for the State/respondents no. 1.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

By means of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the applicant/petitioner (Javed) seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal misc. application no. 27 of 2013, whereby the application of the applicant for transfer of ST No. 176 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee to any other court of competent jurisdiction was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

¶10

A transfer application was moved before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar that Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2011 State vs. Javed under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee. In the course of trial, the evidence of the Investigating Officer was recorded. It

¶11

¶12

was the allegation that the accused was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, however, the application of the accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer was allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved against such an order imposing costs, the accused moved an application for transfer of the said Sessions Trial to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The comments were sought from the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, who wrote to the Sessions Judge that she imposed the cost merely for the purpose of ensuring speedy disposal of the case in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court that the crimes against women should be decided at the earliest. The accused persons were adopting dilatory tactics in disposal of the Sessions Trial concerned. She also wrote, as any other Judicial Officer, who has no personal interest in the case would have written, that she has no objection if the Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2011 is transferred from her court to some other Court.

¶13

A perusal of the order dated 16^th of January, 2013, which led the accused to move for the transfer of the case to some other court indicated that, on that date, PW 5 was present in the Court and his examination-in-chief was already started. Three prosecution witnesses were already examined by then (probably on the previous dates). The trial court did not think it fit and proper to adjourn the hearing of the case. The permission to corss-examine PW 5 was, however, subsequently granted on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order dated 8^th of March, 2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar

¶14

¶15

whereby the application of the accused-applicant for transfer of the case to some other court was rejected.

¶16

It does not appear on the basis of documents on record that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee. A litigant is not entitled to have the choice of particular Presiding Officer or a particular court to decide his lis . Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is therefore, dismissed summarily at the threshold.

¶17

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 02.04.2013

¶18

Kaushal

¶19

Javed v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

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

Mohd Haneef Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Pradeep Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Makhan Lal @ Lalta Prasad Vs Smt. Kanyawati and Anr.

Chandra Shekhar Upreti Vs Station House Officer Haldwani

Smt. Muneshi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Panchanand and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.