# Deepanshu @ Sudhanshu Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-25
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 83 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepanshu-sudhanshu-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51294
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Sectiontion 181-Genesis of all the
six cases is a single recovery memo -which has
been executed -three cases are pending
consideration - the cases, so indicated be
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferred
to
the
Competent
Court.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Deepanshu @ Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1555
statutory requirement that before initiating
further investigation, investigation agency
must take permission of the concerned
Magistrate. Further, investigation is very
distinct from the re-investigation/de novo
investigation or fresh investigation. Further
investigation is the continuance of the
investigation, which has already been done and
on discovery of new facts or the facts which
were left out during the investigation. Whereas
in the case of the fresh, De-novo or
reinvestigation, the investigation already done
is required to be wiped out and investigation is
required to begun from its inception. Further
investigation can be carried out even without
any permission from the concerned Magistrate.
However, fresh, de-novo or reinvestigation
cannot be done without the specific orders by
the competent Court.

34. In view of the law discussed
hereinabove, which clearly reflects that the
powers of the Superintendent of Police
regarding further investigation are unfettered
and there is no statutory requirement of taking
permission and there being no specific
proforma provided for seeking such permission
or the order, which is required to be passed for
the purpose of allowing such application, we
are of the opinion that this was sufficient
compliance of the law as laid down by various
judgments stating from Ram Lal Narang
(supra) onwards, which is based on long
accepted practice of moving such application
before the court.

35. To our mind as the police report has
already been submitted, the object of filing such
application is that the court must be aware of
the fact that further investigation has been
directed in the matter."

10. In view of the law as discussed above
where it has come on record that after
submission
of
police
report,
further
investigation was directed by respondent no. 2
vide order dated 6.10.2023 and thereafter an
application
seeking
permission
of
the
Magistrate was filed on 10.10.2023 and prayer
was made to supply certified copies of the
original case diary/charge-sheet, which was
allowed on 12.10.2023 (Annexure CA-4 to the
affidavit filed by respondent no. 4), we find no
illegality in the impugned order dated
6.10.2023.

11. Accordingly, present petition lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.

12. The office is directed to keep a
photocopy of the instructions dated 30.11.2023
containing (21) paragraphs submitted by
Srikant
Dwivedi,
Inspector/Investigating
Officer, Crime Branch, District Rampur on
record and return the instructions in original to
learned AGA within three days.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 83 of 2023

Deepanshu @ Sudhanshu Tripathi
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ganga Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Sectiontion 181-Genesis of all the
six cases is a single recovery memo -which has
been executed -three cases are pending
consideration - the cases, so indicated be
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferred
to
the
Competent
Court.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Nahar Singh Yadav & anr.Vs U.O.I. & ors.
reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 307]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ganga Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddh
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed U/s
482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the
following relief:

"It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to pass an order, directing for
transfer of Sessions Trial No. 1088 of 2022,
pending in the court of Special Judge (E.C.
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.
4, Kanpur Nagar, having Case Crime No.
436 of 2020, under section 379 I.P.C.,
Police Station -Gwaltoli, District-Kanpur
Nagar and Case No. 1025 of 2021, pending
in the court of chief Judicial Magistrate
Unnao, having Case Crime No. 291 of
2021, under section-379, 411 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kotwali, District-Unnao as well as
Case No. 1087 of 2021, pending in the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Unnao,
having Case Crime No. 373 of 2021, under
section- 379, 411 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali, District-Unnao, to the court of
Sessions Judge, Lucknow and in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow,
from where the cases will be committed to
the concerned Session Courts."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the petitioner has falsely
been implicated in the certain cases, on the
basis of single recovery which has been
executed at Lucknow. Attention has been
drawn towards Para 4 so as to show the
cases pending against the petitioner. Para 4
of the petition reads as under:

"4. That the applicant has been
falsely dragged by the police involving the
applicant in the cases detailed herein below
as there exists no name of the applicant in
either of the first information reports.

(A) That the cases pending at
Lucknow
in
the
court
of
Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.),
court no. 20, Lucknow are detailed herein
below:-

(1) Case No. 228 of 2021, vide
Case Crime No. 113 of 2021, under
Section-379,
411,
413
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Para, District Lucknow South.

(2) Case No. 229 of 2021, vide
Case Crime No. 227 of 2021, under
section- 379, 411, 420 I.P.C., Police
Station- Para, District- Lucknow South.

(3) Case No. 308 of 2021, vide
Case Crime No. 236 of 2021, under
Section- 420, 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station
- Para, District- Lucknow South

(B) That the cases pending at
Unnao in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Unnao are detailed herein
below :-

(1) Case No. 1025 of 2021, vide
Case Crime No. 291 of 2021, under section
- 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali,
District-Unnao.

(2) Case No. 1087 of 2021, vide
Case Crime No. 373 of 2021, under
section- 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Unnao.

(C) That the case pending at
Kanpur in the court of Special Judge E.C.
Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 4,
Kanpur Nagar is detailed herein below:-
2 All. Deepanshu @ Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1557

(1) Session Trial No. 1088 of
2022, vide Case Crime No. 436 of 2020,
under Section - 379 I.P.C., Police Station -
Gwaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar."

4. In Para nos. 5, 6 and 7, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has narrated the
details of the afoaresaid cases and stated
that in all the aforesaid cases, the subject
matter is same. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that the 3
cases, as have been indicated in Para 4(A)
are pending consideration before the
Lucknow courts.

5. By means of this petition, the
prayer of the present petitioner is confined
relating to the cases which have been
indicated vide Para 4(B) and 4(C). Two
cases are pending consideration before the
Unnao courts and one case is pending
consideration before Kanpur Nagar.

6. He has submitted that all the
aforesaid cases be transferred at one place.
He has also stated that appropriate order may
be passed in view of Section 181 of Cr.P.C.
He has further submitted that Chapter XIII of
the Cr.P.C. describes the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts in inquiries and trials. He has
further submitted that in view of Sub Section
3 of Section 181 of Cr.P.C., any offence of
theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired
into by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction the offence was committed. For
the convenience, Section 181(3) of Cr.P.C.
reads as under:

"Any offence of theft, extortion or
robbery may be inquired into or tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction the
offence was committed or the stolen property
which is the subject of the offence was
possessed by any person committing it, or by
any person who received or retained such
property knowing or having reason to believe
it to be stolen property."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
stated that genesis of all these cases is a
single recovery memo which has been
executed at Lucknow, therefore, in view of
Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid cases
may be transferred to one place. He has
submitted that 3 cases are already pending
before Lucknow courts, therefore, the
remaining 3 cases may also be transferred to
the competent court of Lucknow.

8. Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned
AGA has submitted that under Chapter XIII
of the Cr.P.C., the mechanism/procedure has
been provided to determine the places of trial
in certain offences. He has also stated that
Section 181 Cr.P.C. clearly provides such
modality. He has also stated that in view of
Sub Section 3 of Section 181 Cr.P.C., any
offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be
tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction the offence was committed and in
the present case, the genesis of all the six
cases is a single recovery memo which has
been executed at Lucknow itself, therefore,
Sri Singh has stated that in the interest of
justice, any appropriate order may be passed
by this Court. Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh has
referred the dictum of Apex Court in the case
of Nahar Singh Yadav and Another Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in
[(2011) 1 SCC 307] by submitting that in the
aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has
interpreted the modalities in such cases. For
the convenience, para 29 of the aforesaid
judgment of Apex Court in Re; Nahar
Singh Yadav (supra) reads as under:

"Thus, although no rigid and
inflexible rule or test could be laid down to
decide whether or not power under Section
406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is
1558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
manifest from a bare reading of subsections (2) and (3) of the said Section and
on an analysis of the decisions of this Court
that an order of transfer of trial is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely
because an interested party has expressed
some apprehension about the proper
conduct of a trial. This power has to be
exercised cautiously and in exceptional
situations, where it becomes necessary to
do so to provide credibility to the trial.
Some of the broad factors which could be
kept in mind while considering an application
for transfer of the trial are:-

(i) when it appears that the State
machinery or prosecution is acting hand in
glove with the accused, and there is likelihood
of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical
attitude of the prosecution;

(ii) when there is material to show
that the accused may influence the prosecution
witnesses or cause physical harm to the
complainant;
(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships
likely to be caused to the accused, the
complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses,
besides the burden to be borne by the State
Exchequer in making payment of travelling and
other expenses of the official and non-official
witnesses;

(iv)
a
communally
surcharged
atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability
of holding fair and impartial trial because of the
accusations made and the nature of the crime
committed by the accused; and

(v) existence of some material from
which it can be inferred that the some persons
are so hostile that they are interfering or are
likely to interfere either directly or indirectly
with the course of justice."

9. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, having perused the material available on
record, having regard to the relevant provisions
of law so defined under Chapter XIII, more
particularly, Section 181(3) of Cr.P.C. and also
having regard to the dictum of Apex Court in
Re; Nahar Singh Yadav (supra), I am of the
considered opinion that since in the present case
the genesis of all the six cases is a single
recovery memo which has been executed at
Lucknow and three cases are pending
consideration before the Lucknow courts,
therefore, the cases, so indicated in Para nos.
4(B) and 4(C) may be transferred to the
Competent Court of Lucknow.

10.

Accordingly,
the
concerning
Judge/competent court at Unnao where the
Case No. 1025 of 2021, vide Case Crime No.
291 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao and
Case No. 1087 of 2021 vide Case Crime No.
373 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao as well
as the competent court at Kanpur where
Sessions Trial No. 1088 of 2022 vide Case
Crime No. 436 of 2020, under Section 379
IPC, Police Station Gwaltoli, District
Kanpur Nagar, are pending consideration,
may do the needful to transfer those cases
to District Judgeship, Lucknow.

11. The District & Sessions Judge,
Lucknow, after receiving the paper books
of the aforesaid cases, shall do the needful
to assign the aforesaid cases to the
Competent Courts, as per the nature of
allegations, so indicated in the chargesheet
of the aforesaid cases.

12. It is expected from the learned
trial courts concerned that all the aforesaid
six cases be conducted and concluded with
expedition strictly in accordance with law
by affording ample opportunity of hearing
to the parties concerned.

13. The instant petition U/s 482
Cr.P.C.
is
hereby
allowed.
2 All. Akash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1559
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1559
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 1201 of 2024

Akash Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Deepak Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 -
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Petitioner
challenged rejection orders dated 27.04.2022
and
06.05.2022
denying
compassionate
appointment - Held, petitioner's father, a
Constable,
died
on
23.10.2004;
mother's
application
for
compassionate
appointment
(26.08.2006)
rejected
on
12.05.2009,
unchallenged - Petitioner, attaining majority on
02.07.2014, applied on 15.09.2016 (over 11
years after father's death, 2 years after
majority) - Rule 5 allows relaxation of 5-year
limitation period, but application filed after 11
years and 10 months deemed unreasonable -
Malaya
Nanda
Sethy
Vs
St.
of
Orissa
distinguished, as it pertains to applicable rules
at time of death, not delay - Anit Kumar Yadav
Vs St. of U.P. inapplicable, as applicant there
applied within 12 days of majority, unlike
petitioner's 2-year delay to pursue preferred
post - Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Haryana
and Sanjay Kumar Vs St. of Bihar followed,
holding compassionate appointment aims to
address immediate financial crisis, not provide
vested right exercisable after long delay -
Petitioner's delay to qualify for preferred post
(Constable) contravenes Rules' purpose
-
Rejection
orders
upheld,
no
interference
warranted. (Para 9-17)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs St. of Orissa; Civil
Appeal
No.
4103
of
2022,
decided
on
20.05.2022

2. Anit Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P.; Service
Single No. 6439 of 2021, decided on 02.12.2021

3. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har.; (1994) 4
SCC 138

4. Sanjay Kumar Vs St. of Bihar; 2000 SCC
(L&S) 895

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned
Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.
Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties/respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing of the impugned
order
dated
27.04.2022
passed
by
respondent no.1 and the impugned order
dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etah whereby the
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment under U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974
(hereinafter
referred as 'Rules of 1974') has been
rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the father of the
petitioner had expired on 23.10.2004 while
he was working on the post of Constable
(Civil Police). After the demise of the
father of the petitioner, the mother of the
petitioner i.e. Smt. Usha Yadav, wife of the