# Smt. Ankita Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 170
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-13
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 27 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ankita-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52130
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4
6 All. Smt. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 407 - Transfer application -
Maintainability
of
-
Held,
the
apprehension of bias and fear for
personal safety are substantial grounds
for transfer - Influence exerted by
opponent's
relative
who
is
SubInspector in police could unduly affect
investigation and trial proceedings -
Threats received by applicant jeopardize
their
ability
to
participate
in
trial
fearlessly
-
Pendency
of
domestic
violence case supports argument for
consolidating
proceedings
in
one
jurisdiction,
ensuring
comprehensive
consideration
of
all
aspects
and
evidence connected to the dispute and
also guided by principles laid down by
Apex Court - Hence, transfer would
mitigate risk of bias, ensure safety of
applicant and facilitate fair trial. (Para 2,
21, 22)

Transfer application is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deciding an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C., an application under Section 483
Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Family
Court for expeditious disposal of an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
would be maintainable.

10.

Accordingly,
I
reject
preliminary objection raised by the learned
AGA and proceed to examine the merits of
the case.

11. The petitioner no. 1 got
married to the opposite party no. 2 on
19.02.2012. She gave birth to a daughterpetitioner no. 2, on 23.01.2014. The
petitioner no. 1 alleges that the opposite
party no. 2 used to ill treat her and he threw
her and her daughter out of her matrimonial
home in the night of 21.12.2021. On
02.02.2022,
the
petitioners
filed
an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
claiming maintenance. The opposite party
no. 2 filed an application dated 17.05.2023
under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. praying for
rejection of the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. On 28.02.2023, the petitioners
filed an application for payment of interim
maintenance, to which the opposite party
no. 2 filed his objections on 18.04.2023.
The case has repetitively been adjourned
since then and the application for interim
maintenance has not been decided till date.

12. The third proviso appended to
Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. provides that an
application for the monthly allowance for
the interim maintenance and expenses for
proceeding under the second proviso shall,
as far as possible, be disposed of within
sixty days from the date of he service of
notice of the application to such person.

13. As the petitioners' application
under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. for payment
of interim maintenance is pending since
18.04.2023 although the period of sixty
days
provided
in
the
third
proviso
appended to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. for
disposal of the application for interim
maintenance has expired long ago, it would
be expedient in the interest of justice that a
direction be issued to the Family Court for
expeditious disposal of the application for
interim maintenance.

14. Accordingly, the instant
petition is allowed.

15
.
The
learned
Additional
Principal Judge (APJ-07), Family Court,
Lucknow is directed to dispose of the
pending application for payment of interim
maintenance
to
the
petitioners
expeditiously, keeping in view the statutory
mandate
contained
in
third
proviso
appended to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 170
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 27 of 2022

Smt. Ankita Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Viplava Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Surya Bux
Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Udai Bhan Pandey

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4
6 All. Smt. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 407 - Transfer application -
Maintainability
of
-
Held,
the
apprehension of bias and fear for
personal safety are substantial grounds
for transfer - Influence exerted by
opponent's
relative
who
is
SubInspector in police could unduly affect
investigation and trial proceedings -
Threats received by applicant jeopardize
their
ability
to
participate
in
trial
fearlessly
-
Pendency
of
domestic
violence case supports argument for
consolidating
proceedings
in
one
jurisdiction,
ensuring
comprehensive
consideration
of
all
aspects
and
evidence connected to the dispute and
also guided by principles laid down by
Apex Court - Hence, transfer would
mitigate risk of bias, ensure safety of
applicant and facilitate fair trial. (Para 2,
21, 22)

Transfer application is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs Rani Jethmalani
(1979) 4 SCC 167

2. K. Anbazhagan Vs Superintendent of Police
(2004) 3 SCC 767

3. Abdul Nazar Madani Vs St. of T. N. (2000) 6
SCC 204

4. Rupali Devi Vs St. of U. P. & ors. reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 384

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Surya Bux Singh,
learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri
Udai Bhan Pandey, learned Counsel for the
opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, Shri Ashok
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the
State-opposite party No.1 and perused the
entire material placed on record.

2. This application under Section
407 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of
applicant, namely-Smt. Ankita Singh with a
prayer to transfer the proceedings of Case
No.5024 of 2021 (State vs. Ashish Singh
and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.651 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323,
504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKotwali
Ayodhya,
District-Ayodhya
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ayodhya to the competent
Court at District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned Counsel for the
applicant submitted that the marriage of
applicant was solemnized with the opposite
party No.4 on 29.11.2016 and after
marriage she was being victimized for
demand
of
dowry,
then
under
the
compulsion of harassment and torture, a
complaint
was
made
to
National
Commission for Women and an FIR was
lodged on 07.09.2020. He further submitted
that applicant is a resident of Gorakhpur,
but
under
the
order
of
National
Commission for Women, the FIR was
lodged at Ayodhya.

4. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that one Rakesh
Kumar Singh (accused in the F.I.R.) is the
Uncle (Chacha) of the opposite party no. 4
and is currently serving in Uttar Pradesh
Police and at the time of lodging of the
FIR, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in
District Bahraich and being in the Police
department
he
interfered
in
the
investigation of the case, therefore, proper
investigation
was
not
done
by
the
investigating officer as the Uncle of the
opposite party no. 4 was exercising his
influence.
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant
being
aggrieved
by
the
interference in the investigation made by
Rakesh
Kumar
Singh,
moved
an
application dated 30.11.2020 before the
Additional Director General (Zone), U.P.
Lucknow to transfer the Case Crime No.
651 of 2020 under sections 498A and 506
I.P.C.
and
Sections
3/4
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali
Ayodhaya, District Ayodhaya to District
Gorakhpur as the applicant/ first informant
is lady and is unable to do pairvi and
appear before the investigating officer at
Ayodhya and it was also stated in the
application
that
accused
persons
are
influential persons of the locality and are
interfering with the investigation. He
further submitted that thereafter, the matter
was referred to the Additional Director
General
(Crime),
Police
Headquarter,
Lucknow with the recommendation that the
case of the applicant be transferred to
District Gorakhpur from District Ayodhya,
however,
despite
the
recommendation
being made by Additional Director General
(Zone), Lucknow to transfer the case from
Ayodhya to Gorakhpur, the same was not
done due to the fact that Rakesh Kumar
Singh (accused in the F.I.R.) was posted in
nearby District as Sub- Inspector and was
regularly interfering with the investigation.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further
submitted
that
ultimately
the
investigation was conducted in a hasty
manner exonerating Rakesh Kumar Singh of
all charges and the charge sheet was only
submitted against opposite parties nos. 2 to 4
only under section 498A I.P.C. and sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 06.04.2021.

7. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that on the
aforesaid chargesheet cognizance has been
taken by the learned Magistrate on
22.07.2021. He further submitted that
applicant/ first informant is lady and her
father is aged about 63 years and there is no
other male member in the family of the
applicant
to
accompany
her
from
Gorakhpur to Ayodhay on each and every
date for appearance before the trial court.

8 . Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
applicant is living with her parents at
parental house in Gorakhpur and the
opposite parties no. 2 to 4 have not taken
care of the applicant and being aggrieved
by their act, the applicant filed an
application under section 12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 against opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and
Rakesh Kumar Singh who is cousin fatherin-law of the applicant in the Court of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur being Complaint Case No.
15333 of 2020 (Smt. Ankita Singh V.
Ashish Singh and others) and the said case
is also pending in the concerned court in
Gorakpur.

9. Learned Counsel for the
applicant further submitted that applicant
moved an application for obtaining the
result of the investigation before the
concerned Investigating Officer to know
the progress of the case, on which she was
told by the police that the charge sheet has
been submitted on 05.04.2021 and she was
further advised to visit the concerned court
to know the status of her case, then the
applicant sent her father, who went to
Ayodhya where he came to know that the
cognizance has been taken and the case is
fixed for 22.11.2021, then the father of the
applicant i.e. Anil Kumar Singh reached the
concerned court to do pairvi of the case on
6 All. Smt. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
22.01.2022 where the opposite party Nos.2
to 4 alongwith some antisocial elements
threatened the old father of the applicant
and warned her father that if the applicant,
her father and other witnesses of case
pursue this case and produce the evidence
against them, they shall be killed in
Ayodhya, thereafter, the father of the
applicant informed about this incident to
Police Station concerned, but nothing was
done by the police due to influence of
Rakesh Kumar Singh, accused in FIR.

10. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are ardent
criminals and antisocial elements and the
brother of the opposite party No.2 i.e.
Rakesh kumar Singh is a police person who
has been exonerated in present case, who
threaten the applicant and her family
members, as such, there is danger of life of
the applicant if she goes to do pairvi of the
case in Ayodhya.

11. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
an
application under Section 12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 against opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and
Rakesh Kumar Singh, in the Court of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur being Complaint Case No.
15333 of 2020 (Smt. Ankita Singh V.
Ashish Singh and others) and the said case
is also pending in the concerned court in
Gorakhpur, thus, the present case may be
transferred to District-Gorakhpur from
District-Ayodhya so that the applicant can
easily do pairavi in both the cases.

12. On the other hand, Shri Udai
Bhan Pandey, learned Counsel for the
opposite party Nos.2 to 4 opposed the
contentions made by learned Counsel for
the applicant and submitted that the
allegations leveled by the applicant in the FIR
are false and fabricated and the FIR has been
lodged only with the intention to harass and
torture the opposite party No.4 and his family
members. He further submitted that after
lodging of the FIR the opposite party No.4
himself made representation to the concerned
authorities requesting them to conduct fair
investigation in the matter, thus, he submits
that this application lacks merit and substance
and the same is liable to be rejected by this
Court
as
the
applicant
is
having
apprehensions about danger of her life and
she has no credible evidence to demonstrate
this fact that the proceedings of the trial are
affected by the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 but
he did not dispute this fact that the case filed
by the applicant under Section 12 of the
Protection
of
Women
from
Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 is pending in DistrictGorakhpur.

13. Learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party No.1 also made an agreement
with the submissions advanced by learned
Counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and
submitted that if the applicant is aggrieved by
the threats given by the opposite party Nos.2
to 4, she may approach competent forum for
redressal of her grievances.

14. I have heard learned Counsel for
the respective parties and perused the
material placed on record.

15. Before entering into the merits
of this case, this Court deems it appropriate to
discuss provision of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 relating to transfer of cases from
one court to another court of competent
jurisdiction.

16. Section 407 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, provides the High
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court with the authority to transfer cases to
another court if it believes that a fair and
impartial trial cannot be held, or for other
reasonable causes. Section 407 (6) of
Cr.P.C., 1973 would read as under:-

"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-four
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
6 All. Smt. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
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.

(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."

Thus, the principles governing
the transfer of cases include the need to
maintain
public
confidence
in
the
administration of justice, ensuring the
safety of the parties, and preventing any
undue influence on the judicial process.

17. Now coming to the case in
hand, the key reasons provided by the
applicant for seeking the transfer of the
aforesaid case from District-Ayodhya to
District-Gorakhpur includes:-

1. Influence on Investigation:-
The applicant claims that the uncle of the
opposite party No.4, being a Sub-Inspector
in the police, used his position to influence
the investigation, whereby his name was
exonerated from the chargesheet though he
was named in the FIR. This creates a
significant
risk
of
bias-ness
in
the
proceedings, compromising the integrity of
the trial.

2. Threats and Intimidation:-
The applicant has been threatened with
harm to prevent them from attending the
trial at District-Ayodhya. This intimidation
can impede the applicant's ability to
present her case effectively and seek justice
and the father of the applicant was also
threatened by the opposite party Nos. 2 to
4.

3. Related Domestic Violence
Case:- A domestic violence case under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
already pending in District-Gorakhpur
against the opposite party Nos.2 to 4.
Consolidating both cases in one jurisdiction
could facilitate a more coherent and
comprehensive adjudication of related
matters.

18. Further, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to render landmark
judgments providing insight into the
circumstances under which courts have
allowed the transfer of cases:

1. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs
Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167:- The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
justice should not only be done but should
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be
done. If there is a reasonable apprehension
in the mind of the applicant that justice
will not be done, the case should be
transferred.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2.
K.
Anbazhagan
vs
Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC
767:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered
the transfer of a case due to the potential
influence and interference by high-ranking
officials in the investigation, emphasizing
the importance of an impartial and fair trial.

19. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani
vs State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6 SCC 204
was pleased to order the transfer of a case
from Coimbatore to Bangalore, citing the
need for a fair trial, which is a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-

"7.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 CrPC. 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, the witnesses and the larger
interest of the society."

20. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 384 has been pleased to
observe paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15
which read as under:-

"12. Section 498-A of the Penal
Code was introduced by the Criminal Law
(Second Amendment) Act, 1983. In addition
to the aforesaid amendment in the Penal
Code, the provisions of Sections 174 and 176
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
relating to inquiries by police in case of death
by suicides and inquiries by Magistrates into
cause of such deaths were also amended.
Section 198-A was also inserted in the Code
of Criminal Procedure with regard to
prosecution of the offences under Section
498-A. Further by an amendment in the first
schedule to CrPC, the offence under Section
498-A was made cognizable and nonbailable. Of considerable significance is the
introduction of Section 113-A in the Evidence
Act
by
the
Criminal
Law
(Second
Amendment)
Act,
1983
providing
for
presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman to be drawn if such suicide
had been committed within a period of seven
years from the date of marriage of the
married woman and she had been subjected
to cruelty. Section 113-A is in the following
terms:

"113-A.
Presumption
as
to
abetment
of
suicide
by
a
married
6 All. Smt. Ankita Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
woman.-When the question is whether the
commission of suicide by a woman had
been abetted by her husband or any relative
of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven
years from the date of her marriage and
that her husband or such relative of her
husband had subjected her to cruelty, the
court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such
suicide had been abetted by her husband or
by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.-For the purposes
of this section, "cruelty" shall have the
same meaning as in Section 498-A of the
Penal Code, 1860.""

13.
The
object
behind
the
aforesaid amendment, undoubtedly, was to
combat the increasing cases of cruelty by
the husband and the relatives of the
husband on the wife which leads to
commission of suicides or grave injury to
the wife besides seeking to deal with
harassment of the wife so as to coerce her
or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property, etc. The
abovestated object of the amendment
cannot be overlooked while answering the
question arising in the present case. The
judicial endeavour must, therefore, always
be to make the provision of the laws
introduced and inserted by the Criminal
Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 more
efficacious and effective in view of the clear
purpose behind the introduction of the
provisions in question, as already noticed.

14. "Cruelty" which is the crux
of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is
defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean
"the intentional and malicious infliction of
mental or physical suffering on a living
creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment;
outrage
(abuse,
inhuman
treatment,
indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or
mental cruelty. The impact on the mental
health of the wife by overt acts on the part
of the husband or his relatives; the mental
stress and trauma of being driven away
from the matrimonial home and her
helplessness to go back to the same home
for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that
cannot be ignored while understanding the
meaning of the expression "cruelty"
appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code.
The
emotional
distress
or
psychological effect on the wife, if not the
physical injury, is bound to continue to
traumatise the wife even after she leaves
the matrimonial home and takes shelter at
the parental home. Even if the acts of
physical
cruelty
committed
in
the
matrimonial house may have ceased and
such acts do not occur at the parental
home, there can be no doubt that the mental
trauma and the psychological distress
caused by the acts of the husband including
verbal
exchanges,
if
any,
that
had
compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial
home and take shelter with her parents
would continue to persist at the parental
home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical
cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal
exchanges would continue in the parental
home even though there may not be any
overt act of physical cruelty at such place.

 15. The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, as the object
behind its enactment would indicate, is to
provide a civil remedy to victims of
domestic violence as against the remedy in
criminal law which is what is provided
under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.
The definition of "domestic violence" in
the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or
injuries that endanger the health, safety,
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
life, limb or well-being, whether mental or
physical, as well as emotional abuse. The
said definition would certainly, for reasons
stated above, have a close connection with
Explanations (a) & (b) to Section 498-A of
the Penal Code which define "cruelty".
The provisions contained in Section 498-A
of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass
both mental as well as the physical wellbeing of the wife. Even the silence of the
wife may have an underlying element of an
emotional distress and mental agony. Her
sufferings at the parental home though may
be directly attributable to commission of
acts of cruelty by the husband at the
matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be
the consequences of the acts committed at
the matrimonial home. Such consequences,
by itself, would amount to distinct offences
committed at the parental home where she
has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the
mental health in the parental home though
on account of the acts committed in the
matrimonial home would, in our considered
view, amount to commission of cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498-A at the
parental home. The consequences of the
cruelty committed at the matrimonial home
results
in
repeated
offences
being
committed at the parental home. This is the
kind of offences contemplated under
Section 179 CrPC which would squarely be
applicable to the present case as an answer
to the question raised."

21. Further, in the present case,
the apprehension of bias and fear for
personal safety are substantial grounds
for transfer. The influence exerted by the
opponent's relative who is a SubInspector in the police could unduly
affect
the
investigation
and
trial
proceedings. The threats received by the
applicant further jeopardize their ability
to participate in the trial fearlessly.
22. Further, the pendency of a
related domestic violence case in DistrictGorakhpur supports the argument for
consolidating the proceedings in one
jurisdiction,
ensuring
comprehensive
consideration of all aspects and evidence
connected to the dispute and also taking
note of the circumstances and guided by the
principles laid down in the aforementioned
case laws, it is expedient for the ends of
justice to transfer the case from DistrictAyodhya
to
District-Gorakhpur.
This
transfer would mitigate the risk of bias,
ensure the safety of the applicant, and
facilitate a fair trial.

23. Further, this Court finds that
the threats to the applicant's life and the
potential for a biased investigation are
serious concerns that merit consideration
for the transfer of the case to ensure a fair
trial and the convenience of the applicant,
who already has a domestic violence case
pending in District-Gorakhpur, further
supports the need for the transfer.

24. This Court is also convinced
that a fair and impartial trial cannot be
ensured if the case continues to be heard in
the Ayodhya District Court due to the
influence exerted by the uncle of opposite
party No.4 and the threats received by the
applicant and her family members.

25. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
light of the observations and discussions
made above and keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the proceedings of
Case No.5024 of 2021 (State vs. Ashish
Singh and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.651 of 2020 under Sections
498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
6 All. Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
Station-
Kotwali
Ayodhya,
DistrictAyodhya pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya are liable to
be transferred from Ayodhya District Court
to the Gorakhpur District Court as the
apprehension of bias and fear for personal
safety are substantial grounds for transfer.
The influence exerted by the opponent's
relative who is a Sub-Inspector in the
police could unduly affect the investigation
and trial proceedings. The threats received
by the applicant further jeopardize their
ability to participate in the trial fearlessly..

26. Accordingly, the proceedings
of Case No.5024 of 2021 (State vs. Ashish
Singh and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.651 of 2020 under Sections
498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ayodhya are hereby transferred
from Ayodhya District Court to the
Gorakhpur
District
Court
and
the
proceedings of the case be conducted by
the competent trial court at DistrictGorakhpur, expeditiously.

27. For the reasons discussed
above, the instant application under Section
407 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is
allowed in respect of the instant applicant,
namely-Smt. Ankita Singh.

28. Registry of this Court is
directed to take necessary steps and make
arrangements to transfer all the records and
proceedings of the aforesaid case to the
District Court of Gorakhpur, forthwith.

29. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to both the District Courts i.e.
District Court Ayodhya and District Court
Gorakpur
for
necessary
action
and
compliance, forthwith, by the office of the
Senior Registrar of this Court.

30. No order as to cost(s).
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 179
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4461 of 2024

Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Azam Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article
226-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 154-lodging of FIRNon-compliance of the guideline in case of
Lalita Kumari-Direction issued to take
appropriate
steps
in
the
matter
in
question.(Para 1, 2)

B. In Lalita Kumari Case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, after noticing the disparity in
registration of FIRs by police officers on
case to case basis across the country,
issued notice to the Union of India, the
Chief Secretaries of all the States and
Union Territories and Director Generals of
Police/Commissioners of Police to the
effect that if steps are not taken for
registration of FIRs immediately and the
copies thereof are not handed over to the
complainants,
they
may
move
the
Magistrates
concerned
by
filing
complaints for appropriate directions to
the police to register the case immediately