Navratan Kumar Shant and others … v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Subsequent to it, the applicants filed FIR No.517 of 2024, dated

12.06.2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 313, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola Moradabad (“the FIR”). Thereafter, as a counter blast, according to the applicants, the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was subsequently converted into a complaint case, in which, cognizance was taken against the applicants on 23.12.2024, which is basis of the case.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that in case, the case remains in the court at Kashipur, the respondent no.2 may further implicate the petitioner in some other false cases. Therefore, the case may be transferred in any court within District Nainital.

6. It has been objected to by the respondent no.2 on the ground that the sole intention of the applicants is to harass and extort money from the respondent no.2. Initially, when they lodged FIR, police did not find anything and closed the investigation. Thereafter, the offence was done to the respondent no.2, of which, he filed an application, in which, cognizance has been taken and the case is pending. 3

7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the sister of the applicant no.1 was married with the respondent no.2, who died within four years of marriage; when on a request of the respondent no.2, the applicants visited the house of the respondent no.2, he tried to trap them in a false case and subsequently, he filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code on false allegations, which has been converted into a complaint case, which is basis of the case. He submits that, in case, the case remains pending in the Kashipur court, the respondent no.2, who is an Advocate, may trap the applicants in any other false case. Therefore, the case may be transferred.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that the entire basis of transfer is false. He submits that the wife of the respondent no.2 died as a natural death, despite that an FIR of dowry and other offences was lodged against the respondent no.2, in which, the police submitted Final Report, against which, protest petition has already been rejected. He submits that these facts are concealed by the applicants. He further submits that against the cognizance order taken in the case, a C-528 petition was filed in the Court, which has already been dismissed.

9. Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 provides the procedure for transfer of cases. It reads as follows:- “447. 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 4 (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Sanhita, 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 197 to 205 (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. ……………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………..”

10. It is not the apprehension of the applicants that they may not be meted out the fair and partial inquiry or trial at Kashipur court. It is not a case that they are also in some difficulty, if the case remains pending in the Kashipur court. What is being apprehended is that, if the case remains pending in the Kashipur court, the respondent no.2, who is an Advocate, may further trap the applicant in some false cases.

11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that, in fact, the applicant no.1 is also a lawyer. It has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the applicants saying that the applicant no.1 is not a lawyer, but his younger brother is a lawyer. 5

12. In fact, there is no basis for transferring the case. The reasons are not such, which may warrant the transfer of the case. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to allow the instant application. Accordingly, the instant application deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

13. The criminal transfer application is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

31.10.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE4 0699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA