Natthi Lal v. Radhey Shyam and others), under Sections

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others), under Sections-323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Atmaddaula, district-Agra, pending in the Court of J. M.-Ist, Agra to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Mainpuri.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is the resident of Mainpuri and was married at Agra. However, due to matrimonial discord the parties have entered into litigation. An F. I. R., being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act was lodged at police station Kotwali, Mainpuri and trial is going on in the said Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010 at District Court, Mainpuri.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that a complaint being Complaint Case no. 2652 of 2010, under Sections-406, 323, 504, 506 was filed by opposite party no. 2 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others) which is pending adjudication at District Court, Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after expiry of fifteen years even charge has not yet been framed in the said complaint case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that earlier also, a transfer application, being Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 37 of 2024; 2 TACR No. 746 of 2024 Smt. Anupam Versus State of U. P. and another was moved by the applicant before this Court, in which this Court on 24.5.2025 passed the following order: " ............ Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, proceedings are likely to be concluded. The evidence on the part of both the parties has already been recorded before the learned court and date has been fixed for recording the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on account of absence of applicant side, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. could not become possible to be recorded, therefore, if the case is transferred from Agra to Mainpuri, it will cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at the time, when said order dated 24.5.2025 was passed by this Court, an incorrect statement was made that the trial in the said case has been concluded and case is listed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, but now he states that charge in the said complaint case has not yet been framed, hence the order dated 24.5.2024 will not come in the way of the applicant if her prayer is considered as fresh, since the charge has yet not been framed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since another case being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections- 3/4 of D. P. Act is pending at Mainpuri, hence the present case may also be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at District Court, Mainpuri.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that it is the applicant, who is not cooperating in the complaint case pending at District Court, Agra. Had the applicant cooperated and attended the Court regularly, then the said case would have reached to its logical conclusion as of date.

9. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the accused are concerned, they are attending the Court regularly, but the said submission was opposed by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also states that if an order is passed by this Court, the same may amount to reviewing the order dated

24.5.2024 and therefore, prays that the present transfer application be also 3 TACR No. 746 of 2024 dismissed on this count alone.

11. Having regard to the rival submissions and the fact that one case being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act is pending adjudication at District Court, Mainpuri and evidence of two witnesses have already been recorded and the evidence of third witness is going on and as far as possible the applicant is being harassed for no reason and the trial has been delayed for about fifteen years. Moreover, the charge in the said case has yet not been framed.

12. So far as the order dated 24.5.2024 is concerned, the said order may have been passed on incorrect facts, as much as the charge in the said complaint case has yet not been framed, therefore, the question of reaching to the stage of recording evidence of accused under Section 313 CrPC does not arise.

13. Hence the said order will not come in the way of the applicant and the said order was passed on incorrect facts, which could not be brought to the notice of the Court, at the time of passing of the said order dated 24.5.2025. However, nothing can be commented upon the said order dated 24.5.2025.

14. It is settled law that a co-ordinate Bench cannot review the order passed by another co-ordinate Bench. However, the factual aspects can be taken into consideration in another proceedings, such as, had an order been passed on incorrect facts, without bringing the factual matrix to the notice of the Court, the said order should not come in the way of applicant, but in any case, order dated 24.5.2025 cannot be reviewed at all and the remedy lies elsewhere, but since the charge in the present case has yet not been framed and the evidence of witnesses are yet to be recorded, it would be appropriate that present complaint case be also heard and decided at District Court, Mainpuri, hence, in the fitness of things, the present complaint, being Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010, under Sections-406, 323, 504, 506 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others) be transferred to District Court, Mainpuri from Agra, as inordinate delay has occurred in framing the charge, then it is expected and desired that the concerned trial Court shall be putting all sincere efforts for framing the charges and thereafter concluding the trial within a reasonable period of time.

15. In the circumstances, the present transfer application is liable to be 4 TACR No. 746 of 2024 allowed and is hereby allowed. The instant complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others), under Sections-323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Atmaddaula, district-Agra, pending in the Court of J. M.-Ist, Agra, be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mainpuri, September 8, 2025 HR (Harvir Singh,J.) HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others), under Sections-323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Atmaddaula, district-Agra, pending in the Court of J. M.-Ist, Agra to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Mainpuri.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is the resident of Mainpuri and was married at Agra. However, due to matrimonial discord the parties have entered into litigation. An F. I. R., being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act was lodged at police station Kotwali, Mainpuri and trial is going on in the said Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010 at District Court, Mainpuri.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that a complaint being Complaint Case no. 2652 of 2010, under Sections-406, 323, 504, 506 was filed by opposite party no. 2 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others) which is pending adjudication at District Court, Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after expiry of fifteen years even charge has not yet been framed in the said complaint case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that earlier also, a transfer application, being Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 37 of 2024; 2 TACR No. 746 of 2024 Smt. Anupam Versus State of U. P. and another was moved by the applicant before this Court, in which this Court on 24.5.2025 passed the following order: " ............ Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, proceedings are likely to be concluded. The evidence on the part of both the parties has already been recorded before the learned court and date has been fixed for recording the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on account of absence of applicant side, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. could not become possible to be recorded, therefore, if the case is transferred from Agra to Mainpuri, it will cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at the time, when said order dated 24.5.2025 was passed by this Court, an incorrect statement was made that the trial in the said case has been concluded and case is listed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, but now he states that charge in the said complaint case has not yet been framed, hence the order dated 24.5.2024 will not come in the way of the applicant if her prayer is considered as fresh, since the charge has yet not been framed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since another case being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections- 3/4 of D. P. Act is pending at Mainpuri, hence the present case may also be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at District Court, Mainpuri.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that it is the applicant, who is not cooperating in the complaint case pending at District Court, Agra. Had the applicant cooperated and attended the Court regularly, then the said case would have reached to its logical conclusion as of date.

9. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the accused are concerned, they are attending the Court regularly, but the said submission was opposed by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also states that if an order is passed by this Court, the same may amount to reviewing the order dated

24.5.2024 and therefore, prays that the present transfer application be also 3 TACR No. 746 of 2024 dismissed on this count alone.

11. Having regard to the rival submissions and the fact that one case being Case Crime No. 2061 of 2010, under Section-498A IPC and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act is pending adjudication at District Court, Mainpuri and evidence of two witnesses have already been recorded and the evidence of third witness is going on and as far as possible the applicant is being harassed for no reason and the trial has been delayed for about fifteen years. Moreover, the charge in the said case has yet not been framed.

12. So far as the order dated 24.5.2024 is concerned, the said order may have been passed on incorrect facts, as much as the charge in the said complaint case has yet not been framed, therefore, the question of reaching to the stage of recording evidence of accused under Section 313 CrPC does not arise.

13. Hence the said order will not come in the way of the applicant and the said order was passed on incorrect facts, which could not be brought to the notice of the Court, at the time of passing of the said order dated 24.5.2025. However, nothing can be commented upon the said order dated 24.5.2025.

14. It is settled law that a co-ordinate Bench cannot review the order passed by another co-ordinate Bench. However, the factual aspects can be taken into consideration in another proceedings, such as, had an order been passed on incorrect facts, without bringing the factual matrix to the notice of the Court, the said order should not come in the way of applicant, but in any case, order dated 24.5.2025 cannot be reviewed at all and the remedy lies elsewhere, but since the charge in the present case has yet not been framed and the evidence of witnesses are yet to be recorded, it would be appropriate that present complaint case be also heard and decided at District Court, Mainpuri, hence, in the fitness of things, the present complaint, being Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010, under Sections-406, 323, 504, 506 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others) be transferred to District Court, Mainpuri from Agra, as inordinate delay has occurred in framing the charge, then it is expected and desired that the concerned trial Court shall be putting all sincere efforts for framing the charges and thereafter concluding the trial within a reasonable period of time.

15. In the circumstances, the present transfer application is liable to be 4 TACR No. 746 of 2024 allowed and is hereby allowed. The instant complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 2652 of 2010 (Natthi Lal Versus Radhey Shyam and others), under Sections-323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Atmaddaula, district-Agra, pending in the Court of J. M.-Ist, Agra, be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mainpuri, September 8, 2025 HR (Harvir Singh,J.) HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad