# Kali Charan and others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-15
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kali-charan-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-40916
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Y.S. Bohra
Sri Parmendra Kumar
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Transfer
of
Session
Trail
from
one
District
to
another-on the ground of long standing
enmity and series of crimes lodged from
both side-various orders passed by High
Court-held-sufficient for transfer of case
from Bulandshahar to District Judge,
Ghaziabad.

Held: Para 6

After
hearing
the
counsel
for
the
respective parties at length and taking
into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances and also the series of
crime by both the sides as a result of
long standing enmity, I am of the
considered view that the trial should be
held some where else to ensure that it is
completed expeditiously. The various
orders passed by this Court are sufficient
to come to a conclusion that if the trial is
permitted to continue at Bulandshahar,
the danger of repetition of the offences
on either side will continue to loom
large.

## Text

368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Therefore, in my opinion the contention
as raised by the learned counsel for the
applicants
that
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer had no authority to
file this first information report is correct.
Therefore the report being without any
right the criminal proceeding cannot
continue on the basis thereof. Moreover
as mentioned above, the fact whether the
allotment is legal or not is still subjudice
and has to be decided in the writ petition
no. 46405 of 2005. In case it is found that
allotments are not legal. the collector can
take necessary action as permissible under
law.

10.

With
this
observation,
application is allowed and the criminal
proceedings in case no. 1704 of 2001
State Vs. Saroj and others Under Section
420 IPC, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh
pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge
(J.D.), Aligarh are hereby quashed.
Petition allowed
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No.
308 Of 2006

Kali Charan and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Y.S. Bohra
Sri Parmendra Kumar
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Transfer
of
Session
Trail
from
one
District
to
another-on the ground of long standing
enmity and series of crimes lodged from
both side-various orders passed by High
Court-held-sufficient for transfer of case
from Bulandshahar to District Judge,
Ghaziabad.

Held: Para 6

After
hearing
the
counsel
for
the
respective parties at length and taking
into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances and also the series of
crime by both the sides as a result of
long standing enmity, I am of the
considered view that the trial should be
held some where else to ensure that it is
completed expeditiously. The various
orders passed by this Court are sufficient
to come to a conclusion that if the trial is
permitted to continue at Bulandshahar,
the danger of repetition of the offences
on either side will continue to loom
large.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Y.S. Bohra
Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned A.G.A, for the State.

2. This is transfer application for
transferring the Sessions Trial No. 1144
of 2001, arising out of case Crime No.
493 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302 I.P.C., State Vs. Kali Charan and
others to some other adjoining district.
3. The submission is that two
persons namely Jagpal son of Desh Raj,
and Satyapal son of Jagpal have lost their
life. The case was committed to the court
of Sessions. It appears that both the
parties have a long standing enmity.
Another first information report was
2 All] Kali Charan and another V. State of U.P. and another
369
lodged on 3.11.2000 by Chandra Pal
against the applicant Kali Charan and
Pappu alias Autar at Police Station
Sikandrabad at case crime No. 666 of
2000 under Section 302 I.P.C. The
brother of first informant Jagpal was
murdered.
Another
first
information
report was lodged by Ravindri wife of Jai
Singh against Suman, Bitto, Harendra,
Ravindra, Chandra Pal and Narendra on
the same day i.e. 3.11.2000, which was
registered as cross case at case crime No.
666A of 2000, in which four persons
namely Rajviri wife of applicant Kali
Charan, Smt. Sundari wife of Pappu alias
Autar and two children of Smt. Sundari
namely Kartik aged about 2 years and
Laxmi aged about 4 years were murdered.
An application was moved by the
complainant for change of investigation
regarding case crime No. 666 of 2000
since the statements of the witnesses were
not being recorded by the Investigating
Officer. A transfer application was moved
at the instance of the applicants, which
was numbered as Transfer Application
No. 359 of 2002-Kali Charan and another
Vs. State of U.P. which was disposed of
by this Court. The Court while disposing
of the transfer application observed that
there is great animosity between the two
parties, consequently adequate protection
may be given to the parties till the
conclusion of the trial. When the trial was
fixed on 20.5.2006, the applicant no. 2
while going to attend the case, the
opposite party, no. 2 opened fire upon
him causing injuries. A first information
report was registered under Section 307 I.
P.C. at case crime No. 143 of 2006. A
copy of the first information report is
annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit
filed in support of the transfer application.
The applicant no. 2 Autar alias Pappu was
medical1y examined on 20.5.2006 in
B.B.D.G. Hospital, Bulandshahar. A copy
of the order sheet of the said date is
annexed as Annexure-l 8 to the affidavit,
to show that the applicants were not
provided any security and they are not
able to attend the court on the date fixed
in the trial. As a consequence, non
bailable warrant has been issued against
them and the trial is proceeding.

4. Sri Anoop Trivedi has filed
Criminal Misc. Application against the
order issuing non bailable warrant to keep
the non bailable warrant in abeyance and
not to compel their attendance in the court
till the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Annexure-2 to the Misc. Application is an
order dated 18.7.2006 passed by this
Court in the present transfer application
permitting the accused not to appear
personally before the trial court on the
date fixed. Thereafter another order was
passed
on
11.8.2006.
The
Senior
Superintendent Of Police, Bulandshahar
was directed to file an affidavit in reply to
the averments made in the affidavit filed
in support of the transfer, application
fixing 4.9.2006. It is averred in the
affidavit filed in support of the Misc.
Application dated 24.1.2007 that though
the court below was apprised about the
order of this Court despite the fact that the
applicants were not required to be present
in the court, order has been passed on
29.8.2006 on different time at short
intervals. One order was passed prior to
12 Noon, subsequent order was passed at
12 O'clock then again at 2.30 and last
order at 3 0' clock issuing notices to the
sureties and also initiating proceedings
under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

5. Sri Y.S. Bohra appearing for the
opposite party no. 2 has emphatically
disputed the assertions made by the
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
counsel for the applicants and has stated
that even the counsel did not appear
despite time was allowed by the court and
the case was taken up on a number of
occasions on the same day at short
intervals. An application with a prayer not
to give effect to the order issuing non
bailable warrant was rejected as no one
was present to press the application.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Sub
Inspector but no counter affidavit is on
record pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 11.8.2006 directing the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bulandsahar to
file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit
filed by Sub Inspector mentioned that the
proceeding under Section 82/83 has been
initiated against the applicants and also
denied the averments of the affidavit filed
in support of the transfer application.

6. After hearing the counsel for the
respective parties at length and taking into
consideration
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also the series of crime
by both the sides as a result of long
standing enmity, I am of the considered
view that the trial should be held some
where else to ensure that it is completed
expeditiously. The various orders passed
by this Court are sufficient to come to a
conclusion that if the trial is permitted to
continue at Bulandshahar, the danger of
repetition of the offences on either side
will continue to loom large.

7. In the circumstances, it is
appropriate in the interest of justice that
the Session Trial No.1144 of 2001 be
transferred to Ghaziabad. The District
Judge, Bulandshahar is directed to remit
the record of session Trial No. 1144 of
2001- State Vs. Kali Charan and others to
Ghaziabad. The District Judge, Ghaziabad
shall ensure that the Session Trial is
posted to a court of competent jurisdiction
who shall complete the trial expeditiously.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this
transfer application stands allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No.32 of 2007

Sukhram ...Accused-Revisionist
(In Jail)
Versus
The State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ravi Shanker Tripathi
Sri A.P. Tewari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Revision-offence under Section
279, 304A, 427 I.P.C.-punishment of one
month R. I -the accused/revisionist
already undergone punishment of 15
days-No
useful
purpose
served-if
revision dismissed and directed to serve
the remaining period-remaining period
of one month R. I altered in to fine of
Rs.15000/- out of which 12,000/- be
paid to bereaved family-direction issued
accordingly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. J.)

The revisionist Sukhram was tried by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
court no.7, Ghaziabad in Case No.251
of2004, State vs.Sukhram for offences
under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C.,
Police Station, Kavi Nagar, District
Ghaziabad arising out of Crime No. 728