# Smt. Ritu Tripathi v. State of U.P & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1594 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-16 - **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 44 of 2026 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ritu-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54372 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (iii) The Transferee Court shall proceed with the matter from the stage at which it was transferred and shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1594 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 44 of 2026 Smt. Ritu Tripathi ...Applicant Versus State of U.P & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration Whether the transfer application deserves to be allowed on the grounds that the applicant is unable to take part in the proceedings in the Court of CJM Raibareli due to financial constraints and threats of the opposite parties Head Notes The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023- Section 447- The applicant has pleaded in the transfer application that she got married to the opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli, she stayed at her sasural for about 1 1⁄2 months only. Although she has stated that the opposite party no. 4 is working as a tube-well operator at District Jaunpur, the applicant has concealed the fact that she is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi- Applicant has made both concealment and mis-statement of facts in the transfer application and yet she has failed to make out a ground for transfer of the criminal case filed by herself at Raibareli, to Hardoi. Held- The applicant has made both concealment and mis-statement of facts in the transfer application and yet she has failed to make out a ground for transfer of the criminal case filed by herself at Raibareli, to Hardoi- Application dismissed. (E-15) (Para 15, 18 & 22) Case Law Cited Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani: (2009) 16 SCC 188; Sonam Rai v. State of U.P.: 2023 SCC OnLine All 4344; V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer: (2012) 12 SCC 133 List of Acts The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 List of Keywords Sect 447; BNSS; Transfer application; Concealment and mis-statement of facts; Case Arising From Applicant has sought transfer of Case No.13990 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mill Area, 4 All. Smt. Ritu Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1595 District Raebareli from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. Appearances for Parties Counsel for Applicant(s) : S.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri S. K. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishal Agarwal, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 447, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant has sought transfer of Case No.13990 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. 3. It has been pleaded in the transfer application that the applicant got married to the opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli. She stayed at her sasural for about 1 months. Thereafter she went to her maternal house at Hardoi and returned after 15 days. She kept visiting her maternal house with the consent of the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 4 is working as a tube-well operator at District Jaunpur, but his family resides at Raibareli. After sometime, her husband and his family members started ill-treating her for demanding dowry. She was beaten up on 16.03.2025 and she lodged an F.I.R. on 18.03.2025 against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband (the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 respectively) and the husband?s sister Ritika Tripathi. 4. The allegations levelled against Ritika Tripathi could not be established in investigation and a charge-sheet dated 15.04.2025 was filed only against the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 06.08.2025. 5. The applicant has alleged that the accused persons have been enlarged on bail and during that, when the applicant and her brother opposed the bail application, they were threatened by the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. The applicant and her brother were gheroed and threatened for withdrawing the case when they had gone to attend the date fixed on 06.03.2026 and they were forced to leave without meeting their Counsel. On 09.03.2026, the applicant has sent a complaint to the police stating that while she was going to attend the proceedings of the case, the opposite party no. 2 and 4 and five other unknown persons stopped and abused them and they had beaten them up with kicks and fists and threatened to kill them, unless they entered into a compromise. 6. The applicant has filed Complaint No. 2913 of 2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C. Mahila, Hardoi. 1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. The applicant has pleaded that she is unable to take part in the proceedings in the Court of CJM Raibareli due to financial constraints and threats of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 8. The applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the FIR lodged by her and a copy of some extracts of the case diary. It contains a narration of her medical examination report dated 16.03.2025, which mentions an abrasion of 1cmX0.5cm, 2 cm below right eye and restricted movement of right thumb. The injuries were opined to be simple in nature and the duration of injury was one day. 9. Copies of the statements of the applicant, her brother and the land-lord of the house which was the applicant?s matrimonial home at Raibareli, have also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. The applicant and her brother reiterated the FIR version but the landlord has stated that the applicant is working in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi. The opposite party no.4 is working as Operator in Tube-well Department at Jaunpur. The other accused Ritika Tripathi had got married on 11.12.2020. She has not stayed with the applicant at any point of time and she has falsely been implicated. 10. It is relevant to note that the applicant has stated in para 6 of the application that her husband (the opposite party no.4) is working as a tube well operator at Jaunpur and he is permanent resident of District Raebareli. She has stated that she was forced to leave her matrimonial house at Raebareli and having no other place to live she has taken shelter at her brother's house at District Hardoi. However, while she stated that she is unable to attend the proceedings of the case at District Raebaeli due to financial constraints, she did not disclose her financial status and the source of earning. 11. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit that the applicant is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalay, Hardoi. Therefore, the averment made in the transfer application that the applicant will not be able to attend the proceedings due to financial constraints, is false and baseless. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the above stated facts make out a case for transfer of the criminal case instituted by the applicant at Raibareli to Hardoi. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani: (2009) 16 SCC 188, and a decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Sonam Rai v. State of U.P.: 2023 SCC OnLine All 4344. 13. In Anjali Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani (supra), the Hon?ble Supreme court has transferred the proceedings of the a suit from the Family Court at Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai keeping in view the distance between the two places which was about 900 kms and there was nobody in the family of the wife who could escort her from Mumbai to Indore for attending the cases. In the present case, the applicant is seeking transfer of the case from Raebareli to Hardoi and the distance between the two cities is merely 195 kms. The applicant has stated that she has taken shelter of house of her brother and it is not her case that there is no one in her family of the applicant who can escort her from Hardoi to Raebareli. Therefore, the applicant cannot get any benefit from the order in the case of Anjali 4 All. Smt. Ritu Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1597 Ashok Sidhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sidhwani (supra) because of the difference in the facts of the two cases. 14. The case of Sonam Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) arose from an application for transfer the entire proceedings of a Criminal Case instituted on a complaint filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act filed on 27.08.2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Inspite of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. having been recorded, the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 had not been summoned till decision of the transfer application on 04.04.2023. The applicant was originally a resident of District Azamgarh and at the time of filing the transfer application, she was residing at District Mau while the opposite party no. 2 (husband) was a resident of District Azamgarh. The coordinate Bench allowed the transfer application on the following submissions: - 14. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is a poor lady having no source of income and depends upon the income of her father, who also bears the liability of other family members. The applicant herself has a minor daughter aged about four years. The father of the applicant is an old person who is unable to attend the court on every date with the applicant and in absence of him, the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 regularly threatened her, when she goes to attend the court alone. Thus, life of the applicant is not safe in view of the previous conduct of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Due to fear of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 as well as their family members, she could not face the trial in District Azamgarh. In these circumstances, there is apprehension to her life keeping in view the previous conduct of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have good relation with anti social elements and they are waiting the occasion to take revenge from the applicant if she goes to Azamgarh for doing pairvi of the case in question. She is also not able to bear the expenses of pairvi of the case.? 15. In the present case, the applicant has pleaded in the transfer application that she got married to the opposite party no. 4 on 22.06.2022 at Raibareli, she stayed at her sasural for about 1 months only. Although she has stated that the opposite party no. 4 is working as a tube-well operator at District Jaunpur, the applicant has concealed the fact that she is working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi. 16. The applicant has pleaded that she kept visiting her maternal house at Hardoi, but this pleading appears to be false, as a person working as a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi has to reside at Hardoi to be available there permanently. 17. While serving at Hardoi, the applicant herself filed the FIR at Raibareli regarding the offences that had allegedly committed at Raibareli. She had leveled allegations against her married sister-in-law Ritika Tripathi, which were found to be false in investigation. 18. While concealing the fact that the applicant is working as an assistant teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay, Hardoi, she has pleaded in the transfer application that she will not be able to attend the proceedings due to financial constraints. Apparently this plea is false and baseless, as a teacher working in Kasturba Gandhi Vidyalay cannot claim that she cannot attend the proceedings initiated by herself at District Raibareli because of financial constraints. 1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 19. The other ground taken in the transfer application is that the applicant and her brother were threatened by the accused persons on the date fixed on 06.03.2026. However, in the complaint dated 09.03.2026 sent to the police, the applicant stated that while she was going to attend the proceedings of the case on 07.03.2026, the opposite party no. 2 and 4 and five other unknown persons had stopped and abused them and they had beaten them up with kicks and fists and had threatened to kill them. 20. The presence of five other persons has not been mentioned in the transfer application. The discrepancy in the date of the incident is also relevant to be noted. There is no independent witness of the incident. There is no medical report to support the allegations. From these facts, it appears that the applicant has cooked up a story merely to create a ground for transfer. 21. Any person should approach a Court of law with clean hands and should not conceal or suppress any fact and should not make any misstatement of facts. In V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer: (2012) 12 SCC 133, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that: - 44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another?.? (Emphasis added) 22. As has been noted above, the applicant has made both concealment and mis-statement of facts in the transfer application and yet she has failed to make out a ground for transfer of the criminal case filed by herself at Raibareli, to Hardoi. 23. The learned Counsel for the applicant lastly requested that there is a possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute through the process of mediation and for this purpose, notice be issued to the opposite party. Mediation between the parties is possible in the pending case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act also and it is not necessary to multiply the proceedings and fora merely for making a reference to the mediation and conciliation center of this Court. 24. Moreover, there would only be a chance of success in the mediation when the parties participate with clean hands, a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. It appears that no fruitful purpose will be served by referring the dispute to mediation when the applicant has approached this Court by making concealment and misstatements of facts. 25. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the transfer application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. ---------- 4 All. Braham Singh Vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 1599 (2026) 4 ILRA 1599 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Writ A No. 7257 of 2025 Braham Singh ...Petitioner Versus UCO Bank & Anr. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) In the inquiry report, if it is found that the charges are not proved, whether it can be said that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against an employee? (b) When would the pendency of criminal proceedings be said to become effective? (c) What is the precise legal threshold or date upon which a criminal proceeding is considered "pending" to justify or maintain a sealed cover procedure under U.P. Government Orders? (d) Whether the pendency of the matter for sanction of criminal prosecution would have any bearing on consideration of the promotion of an employee, by the DPC? Headnotes A. Service Law - Greator NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1993: Regulation 75 - The petitioner, Braham Singh, was appointed as an Assistant Manager (Civil) in the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority in 2002 and climbed through the ranks to Manager Grade I by 2014. An adversarial complaint was lodged against him on 13.08.2014. He was completely exonerated by the State Government in departmental inquiry (Report dated 14.03.2018). However, following the introduction of the centralized service rules in June 2018 (making the State Government the official appointing authority), a second inquiry on the exact same charges was launched in August 2019. The inquiry officer in this second proceeding also found that the charges were not proved (Report dated 24.10.2019). (Para 26) While the second inquiry report was awaiting final consideration by the disciplinary authority, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 24.12.2020, to consider promotions to Senior Manager (Civil). Due to the structural pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the DPC adopted the "sealed cover procedure" for the petitioner, and his junior was promoted on 29.12.2020. In January 2022, the State Government disagreed with the inquiry officer's clean chit and awarded the petitioner a punishment of 'censure'. This censure was subsequently quashed by the State Public Services Tribunal in May 2023, and on 11.04.2025, the State Government formally cancelled the censure order entirely. Simultaneously, a vigilance/criminal anti-corruption investigation was underway; prosecution sanction was granted on 18.11.2022, and a criminal charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Meerut, on 10.10.2023. After his departmental censure was cancelled, the petitioner filed a representation on 16.04.2025, requesting that his sealed cover be opened and he be promoted retrospectively from the date his junior was promoted. The State Government rejected this representation on 12.06.2025, citing the ongoing, active anti-corruption criminal case. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the High Court.