# Smt. Kasmun Nisan v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 744 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-05-08 - **Bench:** Kalimullah Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kasmun-nisan-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42580 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 166Appellant suffered permanent disability - due to accident caused by Truck-driving very rash and negligent manner-Tribunal inspite of finding of 50% permanent disability due to want of income certificate awarded Rs. 75000/- for loss of future earning-held-award for pain, suffering and loss of future prospectswholly inadequate- as per Laxmi De ## Text 744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KALIMULLAH KHAN, J. Criminal Misc Transfer Application No. 106 of 2013(u/s 407 Cr.P.C.) Smt. Kasmun Nisan ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. and Ors ....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Saurabh Sachan, Sri A.K. Sachan Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Shashank Tripathi Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 407- Transfer of criminal case pending before J.M. Kanpur Dehat-on ground-fair and impartial trail could not be at Kanpur-as prosecution witness due to terror of accused person failed to appear-and even on complaint-neither any protection given by magistrate nor by police officerconsidering peculiar facts of the case-trail of case transferred to Session Division Fatehpur-considering convenience of both parties. Held: Para-6 To my mind the concerned criminal trial should not be allowed to prolonge which should be decided at an early date by a Court where neither of the parties may exercise man power in the proceedings in the Court premises. It would be convenient for the parties also that the case may be sent to such a place where the parties may conveniently appear. To my mind, Sessions Division, Fatehpur is on main route of train where parties may reach conveniently from Kanpur Nagar. (Delivered by Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including counter and rejoinder affidavits, already exchanged. 2. This transfer application has been filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to transfer the Case No. 184 of 2012 (State Vs. Gulam Muhiuddin & others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat to some other neighbouring district. 3. The ground of transfer in nutshell is that opposite party No.2 to 11 are the accused in Criminal proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. The applicant's contention is that prosecution witness could not be produced due to terror of the accused/ respondent No.2 to 11 and applicant and her father were threatened for dire consequences. Applicant has given application for protection by police to the Judicial Magistrate Ist , Kanpur Dehat but no action has been taken and police has also not provided any protection to the applicant and her family. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed denying the aforesaid allegations of threating etc. and submitted that applicant by misleading the Hon'ble Court filed the present application which is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of record it transpires that the relation of applicant wife and her husband accused opposite party No.2 is strained and both the parties are resident of Kanpur Nagar. Accused 2 All] Smt. Kasmun Nisan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 745 Party is said to mount undue pressure upon the applicant to withdraw the criminal trial in question and threatens her. Complaints made by her to authorities have turned futile. Without making any observation or without expressing any opinion on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations and cross allegations made by the parties against each other in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is in the ends of justice to transfer the aforesaid criminal case from judgeship Kanpur Dehat to some other adjoining district because fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be had in this case in judgeship Kanpur Dehat where opposite parties may be in a position to mount pressure upon the applicant through their men and in several other manner. In the affidavit filed by opposite parties in support of therir interim stay vacation application they have deposed that if the case is transferred to some other neighbouring district other than district Auraiya they would have no objection because the applicant and her father have strong man power in district Auraya and it would be inconvenient for them to appear there. 6. To my mind the concerned criminal trial should not be allowed to prolonge which should be decided at an early date by a Court where neither of the parties may exercise man power in the proceedings in the Court premises. It would be convenient for the parties also that the case may be sent to such a place where the parties may conveniently appear. To my mind, Sessions Division, Fatehpur is on main route of train where parties may reach conveniently from Kanpur Nagar. 7. Let proceeding of 184 of 2012 (State Vs. Gulam Muhiuddin & others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2009, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat be transferred to the Court of CJM, district Fatehpur who shall dispose of the matter finally in accordance with law. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J. THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHIii, J. First Appeal from Order No.141 of 2006 Smt. Shobha Singh and Anr. ...Petitioner Versus Mandal Prabandhak, the O.I.C. Co. Ltd. & Anr ....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajendra Jaiswal and Sri Mukesh Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ashok Mehrotra Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 166Appellant suffered permanent disability - due to accident caused by Truck-driving very rash and negligent manner-Tribunal inspite of finding of 50% permanent disability due to want of income certificate awarded Rs. 75000/- for loss of future earning-held-award for pain, suffering and loss of future prospectswholly inadequate- as per Laxmi Devi judgment notional income world be 3000/- per month after 1/3 deduction annual income would be 24000/-as per schedule-II of Section 163 A-at age of 39 yrs.-if 16 multiplier applied total income shall be 3,84000/- apart from Rs. 2 Lacs for future medical expenses alongwith 6% interest-per annum.