C407/8/2007 of MOHD. IQBAL AND OTHERS Vs STATE AND ANOTHER
Parties
- Mohd. Iqbal and others (PETITIONER)
- State of Uttarakhand & another (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 2 detected)
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL
Criminal Transfer Application No. 8 of 2007
Mohd. Iqbal and others
…Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another
... Respondents
Sri S.K. Jain, Advocate for applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent no. 1/State Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 2
Dated: August 19, 2008
Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.
By way of this application under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for transferring Criminal Case No. 673 of 2006 “ State vs. Mohd. Iqbal and others” under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun to any other District away from Dehradun on the ground that incident in question has occurred in court premises, in which vague allegations were made against the applicants. It has also been alleged that complainant is practicing influential lawyer in the court premises and the alleged incident is said to have been witnessed by two Advocates. It has been further asserted in the application that the entire incident is result of concoction, but on account of involvement of lawyers the applicants are not getting any lawyer in order to do pairavi of their case in the court at Dehradun.
The application has been opposed by respondent no. 2 and counter affidavit has been
filed. It has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that Secretary of Bar Association, Dehradun has issued the certificate that no resolution has been passed by Bar Association, Derhadun resolving that no lawyer shall plead the case of the applicants/accused. The certificate issued by Bar Association, Dehradun has been annexed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit.
Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 has also submitted that the matter relates to Vikas Nagar where the court is now functioning and the transfer application on account of functioning of the Judicial Officer at Vikas Nagar court, has rendered infructuous. He has further submitted that it is wrong to state that no lawyer is available to the applicants/accused to do pairavi of their case.
On the basis of material available on record, it is quite clear that it is not case in which it can be presumed that availability of the defence counsel is not with the applicants who are facing trial in the case in question. The certificate issued by District Bar Association, Dehradun annexed along with counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 has given the contrary picture. The Hon’ble Apex Court under the similar circumstances has dismissed the transfer application by way of decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 69, Vishwanath Gupta and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another. The facts in the instant case are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. I, therefore, do not find any reasonable ground to allow transfer application and it is liable to be rejected.
The transfer application is accordingly
rejected.
(B. C. Kandpal, J.)