Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2084 (ALL)

Sanjay Verma v. State of U. P.

2019-09-11

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-applicants Sanjay Verma and Rakhi Verma against State of U.P. and Neeraj Singh with a prayer for transferring Criminal Case No. 676 of 2017, Neeraj Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar and another, u/s 138 of N.I. Act, pending before the court of C.J.M., District Jhansi, to some other court of other district with a further prayer for staying proceeding of above criminal case till disposal of this application. 2. Learned counsel for applicants argued that the applicants are accused in above Complaint Case No. 676 of 2017, wherein they have been summoned for offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. They appeared and applied for bail, which was granted. Subsequently, an application was moved by them, which was rejected. On 4.8.2018 counsel for opposite party gave threat for which an application was moved before the Magistrate immediately, which is Annexure no. 5 to the affidavit. The applicant no. 1, being patient of cardiac disease and under treatment of doctors, was being threatened by O.P. No. 2 and his family members. Hence applicants suspected threat to their lives, for which an application was moved before the Court on 16.8.2018, over which order for sending the same to S.S.P., Jhansi, was passed. But till now neither security measure was given nor any order by S.S.P., Jhansi, was passed. Looking to conduct and behaviour of O.P. No. 2 and his counsel there is suspicion of untoward by O.P. No. 2. Hence this application, with above prayer, has been moved. Besides this, there remained persistent threat on telephonic call by O.P. No. 2 creating panic in security feeling of applicants. Hence this application be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 argued that the case is pending at the stage of recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and with a view to linger the trial, this application for transfer has been moved. Neither any report of any threat was got lodged at Ghaziabad nor at Jhansi by applicants. Whereas merely an application for providing security at his expenses was moved, which was referred to S.S.P., Jhansi, and this can never be a ground for transfer of this case. No threat was ever extended nor there is any insecurity to the applicants. This application be rejected. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed this application. 5. Whereas merely an application for providing security at his expenses was moved, which was referred to S.S.P., Jhansi, and this can never be a ground for transfer of this case. No threat was ever extended nor there is any insecurity to the applicants. This application be rejected. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed this application. 5. This application is supported with an affidavit and the contention of this affidavit regarding this application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. is that counsel for O.P. No. 2 extended threat on 4.8.2018. No evidence of this extension of threat is there nor any report was got lodged at any police station. The next allegation is that 8-9 persons from complainant side remained present nearby Court and threatened. Through telephonic call threat was being persistently extended by O.P. No. 2/ complainant. If this contention is being made this threat may remain, wherever case is being transferred. This can never be a sufficient ground for transfer of case, pending at Jhansi. Moreso, if there was any threat, the same would have been lodged with concerned police officer or high ups. So far as providing of security is concerned, application was moved before the court and by a judicial order, it was referred to S.S.P., Jhansi, and in case of non compliance of same, appropriate proceeding before the concerned court would have been taken. But no such step was taken by the applicants. This complaint case, u/s 138 N.I. Act, is pending before the Court of Magistrate in Jhansi Sessions Division. Territorial jurisdiction is with above court and the same is at advance stage of recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. By moving this application, trial has been held up. Whereas no allegation against Presiding Officer is there. The allegations levelled against the complainant and his counsel are not of noticeable substance. Hence application merits its rejection. 6. Rejected accordingly. 7. However, the Court of Magistrate concerned may take appropriate steps in case of any judicial proceeding against police personnel regarding non-compliance of its order is made. 8. Interim order got vacated. 9. Both sides to appear before the trial court at an expedient and the trial shall be concluded at the expedient.