Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3744 (ALL)

Qasim Ilahi v. State of U. P.

2015-12-01

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2015
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. By way of the instant application, the applicants seek transfer of Case No.1802 of 2013 State Vs. Taufique Ilahi and others, arising out of Case Crime No.322 of 2013 under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut to some other court in nearby district, for the reason that the case is pending for quite sometime in the court concerned and no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against the Presiding Officer but all of sudden on 19.09.2015 and 05.11.2015 (as claimed in paragraph nos.19 and 20), the concerned Presiding Officer went on to declare that he will ensure conviction after expediting the proceedings against the applicants. In such a situation, the applicants became apprehensive of outcome of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that apart from above aspect of the case, it can very well be considered that after charge was framed, the prosecution has got examined three witnesses on its side out of which the two have already been cross-examined and cross-examination of PW-3 is underway. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that in another subsequent case, chemical examination report was obtained in respect of enterprises concerned, on the basis of which, entire allegations made against its official were not found forceful and the concerned accused persons were discharged and the present applicants belong to the same enterprises and in their case, chemical examination report returned finding of beef or its progeny. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further urged that nowadays the political atmosphere prevalent in and around area is very much surcharged in relation to such matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, proceedings of the present case should be transferred to any other court nearby district. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has summed up that in order to avail better chemical examination report, the prayer so made to the trial court was refused. Subsequently, Original Suit No.928 of 2013 by moving plaint was preferred. Only counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the next date fixed is 02.12.2015. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has summed up that in order to avail better chemical examination report, the prayer so made to the trial court was refused. Subsequently, Original Suit No.928 of 2013 by moving plaint was preferred. Only counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the next date fixed is 02.12.2015. 7. Learned counsel has heavily impressed upon the Court that in case transfer application is not allowed where it has been proposed that proceeding of aforesaid original suit be directed to be expedited and till final outcome of the aforesaid original suit, the judgment in this case should not be delivered. 8. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submitted that the averments so made in paragraph nos.19 and 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application is whimsical, vague and unjust in the facts of the case as the political atmosphere cannot be a ground for getting the matter transferred from one court to some other court nearby district. In such matter, in so far as merits of the case is concerned, there is no corroborative purpose of testimony or circumstances which may work out to the applicant. 9. The prayer so made for keeping in abeyance the proceedings of the case in the name of completion of the proceedings in Original Suit No.928 of 2013 is wholly unjustified. On the contrary specific and positive prayer can be made before the court concerned which has seized of the proceedings of Original Suit No.928 of 2013. 10. Considered the rival submission of the parties and perused entirety of the record brought before this Court. 11. The basic contention in so far as transfer of the case from one district to another district is concerned, is not borne out by the material on record in the facts of the case. However, in so far as submission of the learned AGA in regard to make an appropriate application before the court concerned which has seized of the proceedings of Original Suit No.928 of 2013, is concerned, the same can be resorted to and an appropriate order can be obtained. The proceedings can be expedited by the court concerned itself and purpose of the applicants will be fulfilled to that extent. 12. In view of the above, the prayer made for transferring of Case No.1802 of 2013 State Vs. The proceedings can be expedited by the court concerned itself and purpose of the applicants will be fulfilled to that extent. 12. In view of the above, the prayer made for transferring of Case No.1802 of 2013 State Vs. Taufique Ilahi and others, arising out of Case Crime No.322 of 2013 under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, is hereby refused. However, the applicants are at liberty to move an application before the court concerned which is trying the aforesaid original suit. 13. With the above direction, the present transfer application is disposed of.