# Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 820
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 9472 of 2025
- **Bench:** Tej Pratap Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitesh-rastogi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54208
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings as against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 312/2004 (State of U.P. versus Om
Prakash) and the proceedings against the applicant in S.T No. 300 of 2025, relating to case crime
no. 0041/2024 (State of U.P. versus Mohd. Azeem Idrishi) is liable to be set aside and the instant
applications deserves to be allowed.

20. Accordingly, the impugned orders mentioned above are set aside and the applications
stand allowed.

21. So far as the unlawful arrest of the applicants by the police is concerned, Police
Commissioner, Lucknow and Superintendent of Police, Sitapur are directed to take appropriate and
lawful action for such negligent act of the erring Police Officer/Officials and submit a compliance
report before this Court within two months from today.

22. As regards the nature of harm suffered by the applicants, the applicants are at liberty to
seek appropriate relief by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in the light of the legal aspects discussed above.

23. Let a copy of this order be send to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow and Superintendent
of Police, Sitapur through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 820
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9472 of 2025

Nitesh Rastogi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), has jurisdiction to transfer a criminal case from one Magistrate to
another under the BNSS/CrPC.
Whether the impugned transfer order dated 10.10.2025 is sustainable in law.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 15, 192, 194, 407, 408, 409, 410, 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 13, 13(2), 212, 447, 448, 450, 528 -
Indian Penal Code - Sections 170, 406, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 : - Application u/s 482
CrPC - against the impugned transfer order, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby trial of Criminal
Case arising from FIR for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506, 170, 467, 468, 471, 411 IPC, involving
recovery of 5.743 kg gold jewellery and forged IPS ID card, was transferred from Judicial Magistrate to
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - FIR - Recovery - Charge sheet - cognizance taken - trial initiated -
Applicant pleaded that CJM has no jurisdiction to transfer cases, power lies only with Sessions Judge, and
2 All. Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
821
transfer application was defective being unsupported by affidavit - opponent argued that CJM has supervisory
powers and affidavit defect is curable - Court finds that statutory scheme confers transfer powers only on
Supreme Court, High Court, and Sessions Judge, not CJM - administrative redistribution requires District
Judge's approval - judicial transfer by CJM is without jurisdiction - held - impugned order contrary to law and
circulars, ignoring Sessions Judge's prior rejection - transfer order is set aside - hence, petition is allowed -
impugned order quashed - direction issued to Registrar General to issue circular clarifying CJM's lack of
transfer powers. (Para - 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P., 1984 SCC OnLine All 365
Sudesh Chhikara v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1641
Chhandrkantbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2891
A.K. Singh v. Virendra Kumar Jain, 1999 SCC OnLine MP 357
M/S Radical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Padmanabh T.G., CRL.P. No. 1291/2023
Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502
Prem Narayan Singh v. Ramraj Singh, 1990 (27) ACC 430

LIST OF ACTS
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Pre-Conception
and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Criminal Case - FIR - Transfer of cases - jurisdiction - Chief Judicial Magistrate - Sessions Judge - supervisory
powers - affidavit requirement - administrative vs judicial order - excess of jurisdiction - inherent powers.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No. 6148/2022 (State vs. Bijendra Pal Singh & Anr.) - FIR dated 02.09.2021, Case Crime No.
219/2021, offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506, 170, 467, 468, 471, 411 IPC - Recovery of 5.743 kg
gold jewellery and forged IPS ID card - Charge sheet filed 22.01.2022; cognizance taken 08.02.2022 -
Transfer application rejected earlier by Sessions Judge; later entertained by CJM.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Amit Jaiswal, Sri Ambrish Singh Yadav.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Pt. S. Chandra, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Ravi Kant Mishra, AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.)

1. The present petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS to quash/set aside impugned
Transfer Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
whereby, trial of the Criminal case no. 6148/2022 "State vs. Bijendra Pal Singh and other" has been
transferred from the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st (A.T.S.), Lucknow to the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Lucknow.

Factual Matrix

2. Shorn of the details, an FIR lodged against opposite party no.2 Bijendra Pal Singh and
opposite party no.3 Rajiv Singh alleging fraudulent misappropriation of gold jewellery worth
approximately 3,20,00,000/- on 02.09.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 219 of 2021 under
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 406, 419, 420, 506 IPC, with Sections 170, 467, 468, 471 and 411 IPC added during
investigation. On 03.09.2021, the police arrested opposite party no.3 Rajiv Singh and recovered 5
kg 743 gm 90 mg of gold jewellery belonging to the informant firm M/s Mohan Shyam Kalyan Das
Jewellers (MJK), along with a forged identity card purporting to be that of an IPS officer. The
seized jewellery was released in favour of the informant on 05.10.2021. Subsequent applications
moved by opposite party no.3 for recall of the release order were rejected on 29.01.2022, against
which he filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1667 of 2022 before this Court challenging the
orders dated 05.10.2021 and 29.01.2022. Meanwhile, the police filed charge sheet on 22.01.2022
and cognizance was taken by the trial court on 08.02.2022.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, opposite party no.2 and 3 moved an
application for transfer of the case from the court of Judicial Magistrate First class (ATS) Lucknow
to any other court before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow, which was rejected by the learned
court of Session Judge Lucknow. The opposite party no. 3 preferred an application thereupon the
learned trial court which was partially allowed in favour of the accused person and directed to take
back the jewellery from the applicant and deposit the same in Malkhana Police Station. Another
transfer application was submitted by opposite party no. 2 and 3 before CJM. The learned CJM
Lucknow sought a report from the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (ATS) Lucknow where,
the trial of the criminal case no. 6148/2022 was pending. On 09.10.2025, learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (ATS) Lucknow had submitted the report. After considering the report, the
learned CJM Lucknow passed the order dated 10.10.2025 by which the trial of the criminal case
was transferred.

Submission on Behalf of the Applicant

4. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the power of transfer of
cases from one Judicial Magistrate to another Judicial Magistrate vest with Sessions Judge only.
Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding Section 448 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) exclusively deals with the transfer of criminal cases on the
request of an interested party. The said provision confers such power only upon the Sessions Judge,
and no equivalent power of transfer is vested in the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the law.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow, acted beyond the scope of jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the transfer
application, rendering the impugned order wholly illegal and unsustainable. The applicant relied
upon the judgement of case Radhey Shyam and Another versus State of U.P. 1984 SCC
OnLine All 365, Sudesh Chhikara versus State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2025
SCC OnLine Del 1641, Chhandrkantbhai Bhaichandhari Sharma versus State of Gujarat
2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2891, A. K. Singh, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Virendra
Kumar Jain, Advocate, 1999 SCC OnLine MP 357, M/S Radical Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sri
Padmanabh T.G. CRL.P. No. 1291/2023.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the application preferred by
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 was not supported by any affidavit. It is a statutory mandate that every
application seeking transfer of a case from one court to another must be supported by a duly sworn
2 All. Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
823
affidavit. On this ground alone, the said application was liable to be dismissed at the very inception.
However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, failed to appreciate this mandatory
requirement and proceeded to pass the impugned transfer order dated 10.10.2025, despite the
application being unsupported by an affidavit. The impugned order is, therefore, without
jurisdiction, bad in law, and has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. The applicant relied upon the
judgment of case Dipak Babaria and Another versus State of Gujarat and Others (2014) 3
SCC 502.

Submission on Behalf of the Opposite party.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 submitted that a plain and
harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the Code clearly shows that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate is empowered to withdraw any case from any Magistrate subordinate to him, and such
power cannot be narrowly construed as being limited only to cases earlier made over by him. The
scheme of the Code, particularly Section 15 Cr.P.C., makes it evident that all Judicial Magistrates
are subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to the general control of the Sessions
Judge, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is vested with administrative and supervisory authority to
regulate and distribute judicial business among subordinate Magistrates. Therefore, the power to
withdraw and reassign cases flows from such statutory control and supervision, and the exercise of
such power cannot be termed without jurisdiction or illegal. Learned A.G.A. relied upon the
judgment of the case Prem Narayan Singh versus Ramraj Singh and Others, 1990 (27) ACC
430, Para 6 and 13.

8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 & 3 also submitted that the
impugned order dated 10.10.2025 has been passed in the interest of justice to ensure fair and proper
adjudication of the proceedings. It is contended that non-filing of an affidavit along with the
transfer application is a curable irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings, particularly when
no prejudice has been caused to the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow, exercised supervisory and administrative control to facilitate proper conduct
of the case and the impugned order cannot be termed as without jurisdiction merely on technical
grounds.

9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party further argued that the power
exercised by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was incidental and ancillary in nature and was
invoked to prevent abuse of process of court. Therefore, the impugned transfer order does not
suffer from any illegality or perversity and does not call for interference by this Hon'ble Court.

Observation

10. Heard Sri Amit Jaiswal along with Sri Ambrish Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant, Pt. S. Chandra, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla as well as Sri Ravi Kant Mishra, learned
counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the
record.
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. At the first instance, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of law under
which the present criminal misc. application has been preferred i.e Section 528 B.N.S.S.- Saving of
inherent powers of High Court.

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court
to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

12. In the light of legal provision mentioned above, upon careful consideration of the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court finds
that the question involved in present petition is relating to the power of Chief Judicial Magistrate to
transfer the case by passing an order from one court to another.

13. Before proceeding further it is necessary to examine the relevant provision of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS, 2023) or Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (herein after referred as CrPC, 1973), which relates to the issue in contention.

Relevant provisions of CrPC, 1973 read as under:-

"Section 15. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates."(1) Every Chief Judicial Magistrate
shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the
general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special
orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Judicial Magistrates
subordinate to him."

Section 410. Withdrawal of cases by Judicial Magistrate."(1) Any Chief Judicial
Magistrate may withdraw any case from, or recall any case which he has made over to, any
Magistrate subordinate to him, and may inquire into or try such case himself, or refer it for inquiry
or trial to any other such Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same.

(2) Any Judicial Magistrate may recall any case made over by him under sub-section (2)
of section 192 to any other Magistrate and may inquire into or try such cases himself.

192. Making over of cases to Magistrates."(1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after
taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent
Magistrate subordinate to him.

(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to
such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order,
specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.
2 All. Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825

407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals."(1) Whenever it is made to
appear to the High Court" (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely
to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will
tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it
may order"

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections
177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a
Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior
jurisdiction;

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.

(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application
of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that no application shall lie to the High
Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same
sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and
rejected by him.

(3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall be made by motion, which
shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or
affirmation.

(4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him
to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High
Court may award under sub-section (7).

(5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor
notice in writing of the application, together with a copy of the grounds on which it is made; and
no order shall be made on the merits of the applications unless at least twenty- our hours have
elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.

(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any Subordinate
Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of Justice,
order that, pending the disposal of the application the proceedings in the Subordinate Court shall
be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose:

Provided that such stay shall not affect the Subordinate Court"s power of remand under
section 309.
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court
may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by
way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one
thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.

(8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any
Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court
would have observed if the case had not been so transferred. (9) Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.

408. Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals." 1) Whenever it is made to
appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice,
he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal
Court in his sessions division

(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the
application of a party interested, or on his own initiative.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply
in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply
in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407,
except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand rupees"
occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted."

It is relevant to note that Section 15, 192, 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
corresponds to Section 13, 212, 450 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
respectively. Further, Sections 407 and 408 of the CrPC correspond respectively to Sections 447
and 448 of the BNSS, 2023 with some changes, there is no mean to quote the same provisions
twice".

14. The scheme of powers relating to transfer of criminal cases demonstrates the legislative
intent with sufficient clarity. Under these provisions, the authority to transfer criminal cases has
been expressly conferred upon the Supreme Court, the High Court, and the Court of Session. A
careful reading of the statutory framework makes it evident that the Chief Judicial Magistrate
(CJM) has not been vested with any power to transfer criminal cases. The hierarchy and
subordination prescribed under the Code clearly establish that the CJM is subordinate to the
Sessions Judge. Had the Legislature intended to empower the CJM with the authority to transfer
cases, such power would have been explicitly provided for in the statute.

15. This court choose to rely on the judgment of Sudesh Chhikara v. State (NCT of Delhi),
2025 SCC OnLine Del 1641

"The Court referred to Radical Works (P) Ltd. v. Padmanabh T.G., in Crl.P. No. 1291 of
2023, decided on 18-04-2023, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Virendra Kumar Jain, 1999
SCC OnLine MP 357 and Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC
2 All. Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
OnLine Guj 2891 and stated that the Court was of firm view that since the legislature in its own
wisdom had conferred the power of the transfer only to Supreme Court, High Courts and the
Sessions Court, it could not be given by way of inference to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The law of interpretation did not provide interpretation of any provision which in any manner
contravened the intention of the legislature. The legislature could have specifically given the power
of transfer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate if it would have considered it proper to do so."

16. Likewise, in the case of A. K. Singh, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Virendra
Kumar Jain, Advocate, 1999 SCC OnLine MP 357, it has been held :-

10. "..The Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have committed severe illegalities; firstly,
the transfer petition moved before him was under section 410, Criminal Procedure Code, Under
that provision the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is administrative in nature. It is to
keep equilibrium of cases amongst the various Magistrates working under him in the district. He
can withdraw cases from one Magistrate and send them to another. This provision does not
empower a Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise power of transfer on complaint by one of the
parties. For that, the remedy to the aggrieved party is under section 408, Criminal Procedure
Code. That power is exercised by the Sessions Judge. He can transfer cases from one criminal
Court to another in his Session Division "when he considers it expedient to do so for the ends of
Justice". He can transfer a particular case from one court to another. He may act either on the
report of the lower court or on the application of the party interested or on his own initiative. So,
this is the provision which provides remedy to an aggrieved person, who feels to have lost faith in a
particular criminal court for one or other reason. His remedy is not under section 410, Criminal
Procedure Code.

11. In view of this scope of provisions of sections 408 and 410, Criminal Procedure Code
the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have acted on a transfer petition based on grievances
against the trying Magistrate. The best course was to leave the complainant to move the Sessions
Court under section 408, Criminal Procedure Code.

17. In Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal
Application (Quashing) No. 4884/2015, it has been held :-

"16. ".The clear contrast in the language employed by the Legislature in the two sets of
section is indicative of the difference in the nature of the power conferred thereunder. I note below
the differences:

(i) Sections 406, 407 and 408 use the words "whenever it is made to appear" while
referring to the power of the Supreme Court, High Court or the Sessions Judge to transfer cases.
Sections 409, 410 and 411 significantly do not use these words.

(ii)The captions of Sections 406, 407 and 408 speak of exercise of "power" to transfer,
Sections 409, 410 and 411 do not speak of "power" but merely refer to "withdrawal" or "recalling".
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) Sections 406, 407 and 408 contemplate the "power to transfer" being exercised on an
application by a "party interested" (Sections 407 and 408 also contemplate the "power to transfer"
being used on a report of the Lower Court or suo motu; and Section 406 contemplate the power of
transfer being used on an application by the Attorney General). These Sections clearly imply a
need for hearing before transfer. On the other hand, Sections 409, 410 and 411 contemplate
exercise of the power of withdrawal/recalling cases in a routine manner in the day to day
administration. They do not contemplate any hearing to the parties interested.

26. It is clear from the above that the power to be exercised under Sections 406, 407 and
408 is a judicial power to be invoked and exercised in the manner stated therein. On the other
hand, the power of withdrawing or recalling of cases under Sections 409, 410 and 411 is an
administrative power, complementary to the administrative power of making over cases vested in
the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate and the Sessions Judge under Sections 192 and 194 of the
Code."

18. In this context the Circular Orders of the High court of judicature at Allahabad Volume-II
(Covering Circular Letters Issued Up to 31.03.2011) may also be looked upon :-

"DISTRIBUTION OF WORK BY C.J.Ms.

(i) Amongst Judicial Magistrates

C.L. No. 3/Admn.(B) dated 18th March, 1971

Under section 190 Criminal Procedure Code distribution of work among the Judicial
Magistrates should be done by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who may, in his turn, consult the
Sessions Judge in this behalf.

C.L. No. 124/Admn. (B) dated 30th September, 1975

The Chief Judicial Magistrates are required to act under the general supervision of the
District and Sessions Judges even for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 15 of Criminal
Procedure Code.

C.L. No. 73/Admn. (A) dated 19th May, 1976

The Chief Judicial Magistrates should take necessary steps for transferring cases under
special and local Acts to the Executive Magistrates, if not already done.

C.L. No. 4/Admn. (A) dated 21" January, 1987

The District Judges are requested to issue suitable directions to the Chief Judicial
Magistrates with regard to distribution of work under local and special Acts amongst Executive
Magistrates conferred with powers of Special Judicial Magistrates Ist Class, by the Court.
2 All. Nitesh Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
829

(ii) Distribution between C.J.M. and A.C.J.M.

C.L. No. 198/Admn. (A) dated 10th December, 1976

The Chief Judicial Magistrates will as far as possible, assign half the officers to be
inspected by him and the rest by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates. The inspection notes of
the District Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates will be sent to
the successor inspecting officer. Henceforth all the District Judges will also inspect the criminal
work of the Judicial Magistrates and Munsif-Magistrates in addition to civil work.

Jail inspections will be made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates only.

Correspondence work, compliance of High Court orders etc. and collection of statements
will remain with the Chief Judicial Magistrates.

Any distribution of work among the Judicial Magistrates and the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrates or any change made therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrates will have the
prior approval of the District Judge."

19. Although Section 13(2) of the BNSS authorises the CJM to make rules or give special
orders, such powers must be exercised strictly in conformity with the Sanhita. These administrative
powers cannot override or supplement the explicit statutory framework governing transfer of cases.
Any attempt by the CJM to order a transfer, in the absence of statutory authorization, would
amount to an excess of jurisdiction.

20. In the instant case, the legality of the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 needs to be tested
in the light of the legal provisions and circulars discussed above. If the said order is taken to be an
administrative in nature, as it distributes the work among the Judicial Magistrate and Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate then learned C.J.M., Lucknow should have taken prior approval of the
District Judge as it is mentioned in the Circular No. 198/Admn. (A) dated 10th December, 1976 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (mentioned above) but as per the instructions sought
from the learned C.J.M. Lucknow, it is clear that neither prior approval has been taken nor
information was given to the learned Session Judge. On the other hand, if the impugned order is
said to be passed on judicial side (as said by learned C.J.M. in his report dated 14.11.2025), on the
transfer application in Criminal Case No. 6148/2022, then this would be clearly in the absence of
statutory authorization and thus, would amount to be passed without having jurisdiction, which
does not stands. It is further pertinent to take note that prior to the passing of the impugned order,
the transfer application had earlier been filed, considered and rejected by the learned Session Judge,
ignoring which the impugned order has been passed.

21. In view of the discussions made herein above and the references of the case laws as well as
the statutory provisions / circulars referred above, this Court is of the considered view, that the
impugned Transfer Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lucknow under Section 406, 419, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471, 411, 170 IPC, is not in conformity with
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
law, therefore, the said impugned Transfer Order is liable to be set aside and the instant petition
deserves to be allowed.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 is hereby set aside and the instant
petition is allowed.

23. Delving into the importance of the issue raised in the instant matter and taking note of the
grave fact that such practice is being followed by most of the District Courts across the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue an appropriate
circular in this regard.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 830
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10810 of 2018

Devinder Mohan Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the applicants being relatives of husband on the basis of general and omnibus allegations
of dowry demand and harassment, in absence of specific, cogent, and prima facie material, amounts to an
abuse of process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
proceedings, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 - D.P Act, 1961 - s. 3/4 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 173(8) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The instant
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been instituted by the applicants, who are the parents-in-law of
victim, seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of
2014, registered u/ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and s. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act - The First Information Report was lodged by father of victim alleging dowry demand and
harassment by husband and his family members, including the present applicants, both in
Varanasi and during their stay in Australia - Upon initial investigation, no prima facie material
was found against the applicants and they were exonerated; however, pursuant to oral
directions of superior police authorities, further investigation was conducted and a
supplementary charge-sheet filed implicating them - It has further been brought on record that
matrimonial discord existed between the husband and wife, culminating in dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce granted by a competent court in Australia - The allegations
against the applicants are general and omnibus in nature, without attribution of any specific
overt act.