The High Court dismissed the applicant's application for transfer of a criminal case. It rejected the plea that the respondent being an advocate prevented a proper hearing, holding this is not a ground for transferring the case from the original jurisdiction.
Application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
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.
C407 NO.3 OF 2014
U. C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate present for the applicant.
Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate present for the respondent.
A plea of the applicant that the respondent is a practicing advocate at Dehradun, and therefore, the applicant is unable to get proper hearing is no ground for transferring the criminal case from Dehradun to another district.
The application under Section 407 Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)
Dated 06.05.2014
Rawat
3 issues framed by the court
whether the applicant's inability to get a proper hearing due to the respondent being a practicing advocate is a ground for transferring a criminal case
whether an application for transfer under Order XLI Cr.P.C. succeeds when the applicant raises an objection based on the respondent's profession
whether the application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is maintainable without the specified ground for transfer
1 provisions across 1 enactments
applicant
respondent
u. c. dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
