# Jay Singh & Ors v. State of U.P & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1844 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-05-02 - **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 93 of 2023 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jay-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51895 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law - Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 - Section 147-Application filed to compound the offence u/s 138 NI Act and to quash the impugned judgment whereby Applicant has been convicted u/s 138 NI Act-sec. 147 N.I.Act - parties have settled the dispute amicably-the said Act is at liberty to compound the matter at any stage-compounding of the offence may be released by invoking sec.482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India-no bar. Application allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1048 : AIR 2000 SC 2293] this Court stated that the purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 of the Code. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, if any, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society." 8. It is further observed here that from the available material, this Court cannot reasonably conclude that the situation in Sitapur is not conducive for a fair conclusion of case for the applicant. The few instances mentioned by the applicant's counsel may suggest heightened feelings amongst the contesting parties but they do not in my estimation, call for transfer of proceedings to another District. Moreover, it cannot just be the convenience of the applicant but the private opposite party, the witnesses and the prosecution. The larger issue of cases normally being conducted by the jurisdictional court must also weigh on the issue. When relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved in the process are taken into account, the conclusion is inevitable that no credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the District is made out, in the present matter. 9. Thus, in view of the observations/discussions and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that there is no good ground for transfer of the case from one District Court to the another. It is just a ploy adopted by the applicant to delay the proceedings of the aforesaid case as she is having an apprehension that the opposite party no.1 may harm her, which is not a ground to transfer the case from one District to another, if she is aggrieved, she may approach competent forum for redressal of her grievances. Thus, no interference is required by this Court to entertain the instant application moved under Section 407 Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be rejected. 10. The present application is, accordingly, rejected. ---------- (2024) 5 ILRA 1844 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 02.05.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 93 of 2023 Jay Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P & Ors. ...Opposite Parties 5 All. Jay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1845 Counsel for the Applicants: Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Kuldeep, Shikhar Deep Singh Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 407, - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 504 & 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Transfer Application - for transfer of Criminal Case from district Gonda to Lakhimpur Kheri - on the ground that opposite parties along with family members abusing and engaged into scuffle and threatened the applicants to kill - court finds that, the few instances may suggest heightened feelings amongst the contesting parties but they do not call for transfer of proceedings to another district - if they are aggrieved, they may approach competent forum for redressal of their grievances - held, the relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties are involved in the process which are taken into account - no credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the district is made out in present case - it is just a ploy adopted by the applicants to delay the proceedings - thus, no interference is required to entertain the instant application, accordingly, rejected. (Para - 4, 5) Transfer Application Rejected. (E-11) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 407 CrPC, the applicants have sought transfer of Criminal Case No. 890 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Itiathok, District- Gonda from District- Gonda to equally competent court of nearby district preferably to District- Lakhimpur Kheri to try the case. 3. The only ground which has been taken in the transfer application is that the opposite party No.2 alongwith his family members have ambushed the applicants on 05.06.2023 in the court compound at about 11:00 A.M. and started abusing and later engaged into scuffle and threatened the applicants to kill. 4. After considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the available material, this Court cannot reasonably conclude that the situation in Gonda is not conducive for a fair trial for the applicants. The few instances mentioned by the applicants' counsel may suggest heightened feelings amongst the contesting parties but they do not in my estimation, call for transfer of proceedings to another District. Moreover, it cannot just be the convenience of the applicants but the private opposite parties, the witnesses, the prosecution. The larger issue of trial normally being conducted by the jurisdictional court must also weigh on the issue. When relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved in the process are taken into account, the conclusion is inevitable that no credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the District is made out, in the present matter. 5. Thus, in view of the observations/discussions, this Court finds that there is no good ground for transfer of the case from one District Court to the another. It is just a ploy adopted by the applicants to delay the proceedings of the aforesaid trial as they are having an apprehension that the opposite parties may harm them, which is not a ground to transfer the case from one District to another, if they are aggrieved, they may approach competent forum for redressal of their 1846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES grievances. Thus, no interference is required by this Court to entertain the instant application moved under Section 407 Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be rejected. 6. The present application is, accordingly, rejected. ---------- (2024) 5 ILRA 1846 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Application U/S 482 No. 2491 of 2024 Ravindra Kumar Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Veer Bahadur La Srivasta, Alok Kumar Mishra, Chandan Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Dharmendra Gupta Civil Law - Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 - Section 147-Application filed to compound the offence u/s 138 NI Act and to quash the impugned judgment whereby Applicant has been convicted u/s 138 NI Act-sec. 147 N.I.Act - parties have settled the dispute amicably-the said Act is at liberty to compound the matter at any stage-compounding of the offence may be released by invoking sec.482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India-no bar. Application allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328 2. M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta, 2017 (7) Supreme 558 3. Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori Vs Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh , 2004 Crl. L. J. 3786 4. Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited, AIR 2008 SC 716 5. Tanveer Aquil Vs St. of M.P. & anr. (19990) Supp SCC 63 6. Narinder Singh Vs St. of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 7. Rajinder Prasad Vs Bashir & ors.; AIR 2001 SC 3524 8. Krishan Vs Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241 9. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 10. Municipal Corporation, Indore Vs Ratnaprabha (AIR 1977 SC 308) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State opposite party no.1 and Sri Dharmendra Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 2. The instant application under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with the prayer to compound the offence committed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in Complaint Case No.7097 of 2017, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow (Sanchetna Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav) and further to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2021 passed by learned Court of Additional Court No.3 (N.I. Act), Lucknow, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and has been directed to undergo imprisonment for