Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1260 (RAJ)

Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-01

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this Cri. Misc. Transfer petition are that the petitioner filed an FIR against respondent No.2 for the offence under section 323 and 341 IPC. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against respondent No.2. The learned trial court framed charges. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh stating inter alia that another Case No. 48/2009 State of Rajasthan v. Subhash Chandra , is pending before the trial court and since respondent No.2 Subhash Chandra is an advocate in that court, he can affect the trial of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh vide its order dated 24.07.2009, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner . 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has preferred this Cri. Misc. Transfer petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the complainant Subhasha Chandra is a practicing lawyer at Nohar, therefore, he may affect the impartial trial of the case and he further contended that he is having the bonafide apprehension regarding this fact. His prayer for transferring the case to another court has been rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that as the complainant is an advocate it would not be possible for him to adduce his evidence even in another court situated within the district of Hanumangarh. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused has engaged a lawyer from Bhadra but he could not appear due to the distance of the places. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the grounds as mentioned in the petition, does not inspire any reason to transfer the case from the trial court and simply on flimsy grounds, a criminal case cannot be transferred from one court to another, because there are no specific allegations in the petition as to what are the grounds of the apprehension and the pleadings filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge and this Court are vague in nature. Therefore, the learned Public prosecutor opposed the cri.misc. Petition. 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both the parties and perused the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. Therefore, the learned Public prosecutor opposed the cri.misc. Petition. 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both the parties and perused the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned District and Sessions Judge , Hanumangarh rejected the the application on the ground that the applicant has already engaged a lawyer from Bhadra but on one ground or the other the cross- examination of the witnesses was being adjourned at the instance of the petitioner . 9. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is well settled that the grounds mentioned in the application for transfer of the case are vague in nature and without any substance, and the rejection of the application by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh cannot be said to be abuse of the process of law. Therefore , this Cri. Misc. Transfer petition is dismissed.Transfer petition dismissed. *******