Allahabad High Court
Shreya Rastogi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 18 April, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21976
Court No. - 14
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 23 of 2025
Applicant :- Shreya Rastogi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 407 Cr.P.C (now Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023) has been preferred by the applicant with the following prayer:-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, filed in support of present application/petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleaed to transfer the proceeding of Case No. 651/2022 (Shreya Rastogi vs. Subhendu Rohtagi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya from the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad now Ayodhya to any other court in the same District, in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending that she will not get justice from the court of Principal Judge, Family court, Faizabad as the applicant has seen that the other side/respondent before the Family Court going in the chamber of the Principal Judge, Family court, after court timing and sitting there for half an hour to one hour, which creates doubt over impartiality of present Presiding Officer before whom the case is pending, so the same may be transferred in any other court available in the Family court from the court of Principal Judge, Family court, Faizabad.
4. On the other hand, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA has submitted that mere apprehension and on the basis of vague allegation, the case could not be transferred as such, the application is mis-conceived and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment/order dated 28.02.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Sagar Kumar vs. District Judge, Moradabad and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 9146 of 2019). Relevant extracts of the same are quoted hereinbelow:-
"6. Judges in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, discharge most critical functions when they implement the laws and dispense justice. Faithful implementation of the law and impartial administration of justice is possible only if those charged with execution of these functions, are free and fearless, independent and unbiased. These virtues of fearless enquiry, independent decision making and rendering impartial judgments, can flourish in the judiciary only if the environment fosters and supports such qualities. Absent these values or an institutional failure to nurture and fortify these values, could seriously undermine the justice delivery system and impair public faith in the judiciary.
7. The qualities of fearless and independent decision making which are the hallmarks of a vibrant judiciary were emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Prasad Verma (D) through L.Rs. Vs State of Bihar and others, reported at 2019 (10) SCC 640:
"1. In a country, which follows the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary. This independence and fearlessness is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the District Judiciary.
2. Most litigants only come in contact with the District Judiciary. They cannot afford to come to the High Court or the Supreme Court. For them the last word is the word of the Magistrate or at best the Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is equally important, if not more important, that the judiciary at the District level and at the Taluka level is absolutely honest, fearless and free from any pressure and is able to decide cases only on the basis of the facts on file, uninfluenced by any pressure from any quarters whatsoever."
11. The role of the High Court as a guardian of the subordinate judgeships, and the duty of the High Court to protect the judges of the subordinate courts from false complaints, was thus stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Prasad Verma (supra):
"3. Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests control of the subordinate courts upon the High Courts. The High Courts exercise disciplinary powers over the subordinate courts. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the High Courts are also the protectors and guardians of the Judges falling within their administrative control. Time and time again, this Court has laid down the criteria on which actions should be taken against judicial officers. Repeatedly, this Court has cautioned the High Courts that action should not be taken against judicial officers only because wrong orders are passed. To err is human and not one of us, who has held judicial office, can claim that we have never passed a wrong order.
4. No doubt, there has to be zero tolerance for corruption and if there are allegations of corruption, misconduct or of acts unbecoming of a judicial officer, these must be dealt with strictly. However, if wrong orders are passed that should not lead to disciplinary action unless there is evidence that the wrong orders have been passed for extraneous reasons and not because of the reasons on the file."
12. Elucidating the importance of insulating judicial officers against false complaints, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Chand Jain Vs High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported at 1988 (3) SCC 370 held so:
"14. Under the Constitution the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary. While exercising that control it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the mofussil courts. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side no judicial officer would feel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for rule of law. If judicial officers are under constant threat of complaint and enquiry on trifling matters and if High Court encourages anonymous complaints to hold the field the subordinate judiciary will not be able to administer justice in an independent and honest manner. It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the instant case we have no doubt in our mind that the resolution passed by the Bar Association against the appellant was wholly unjustified and the complaints made by Shri Mehlawat and others were motivated which did not deserve any credit. Even the vigilance Judge after holding enquiry did not record any finding that the appellant was guilty of any corrupt motive or that he had not acted judicially. All that was said against him was that he had acted improperly in granting adjournments."
13. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2001 (6) SCC 491:
"7. In the present case, though elaborate enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer, there is hardly any material worth the name forthcoming except to scrutinize each one of the orders made by the appellant on the judicial side to arrive at a different conclusion. That there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is no ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one view and that too for alleged misconduct for that reason alone. The enquiry officer has not found any other material, which would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty or that he has been actuated by any corrupt motive. At best, he may say that the view taken by the appellant is not proper or correct and not attribute any motive to him which is for extraneous consideration that he had acted in that manner. If in every case where an order of a subordinate court is found to be faulty a disciplinary action were to be initiated, the confidence of the subordinate judiciary will be shaken and the officers will be in constant fear of writing a judgment so as not to face a disciplinary enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot act independently or fearlessly. Indeed the words of caution are given in K.K. Dhawan case [Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 325] and A.N. Saxena case [Union of India v. A.N. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 861] that merely because the order is wrong or the action taken could have been different does not warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer. In spite of such caution, it is unfortunate that the High Court has chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in this case."
15. Judicial officers can discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour, affection or ill will only if a conducive environment is built around them. For this it is essential to protect judicial officers, from the menace of false and frivolous complaints by disgruntled litigants or motivated lawyers or interested parties. No judicial officer can discharge her judicial functions in accord with her obligations to the constitution and the laws, if she is under constant threat of roving enquiries on the foot of vague allegations. There is a noticeable proclivity to make such vague and frivolous allegations against judicial officers, by litigants and even lawyers who are dissatisfied by adverse verdicts. Irresponsible institution or unfettered prosecution of false and frivolous complaints, impedes the effective functioning of the judicial system, and undermines the administration of justice.
16. Such complaints paired with litigation against the officers pose a systemic threat to the independence of the judiciary. Judicial officers have to be secured against false and malafide complaints by creating a system of deterrence and penalties. To curb this evil of false and frivolous complaints effectively, it is imperative to create a deterrent regime which may include imposition of costs on the complainants. This is apart from other processess known to law, like drawing contempt proceedings. In the absence of such deterrent regime false and frivolous complaints would be made with impunity, the complainants would harbor a sense of immunity and the judges would become perpetually vulnerable."
5. The judgments of this court in Misc. Single No. 23378 of 2021 (Jitendra Kumar versus Board of Revenue, U.P Lko and others) dated 26.10.2021 and Writ B No. 855 of 2022 (Ram Ikbal versus Commissioner Consolidation, Sultanpur and others) dated 03.01.2023. The relevant portion of Writ B No. 855 of 2022 is quoted hereinbelow:-
''Opposing the prayer sought in the petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey as also Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties stated that the transfer of a case from one court to other is quite a serious issue and cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner. It is submitted that even if there is modicum of apprehension in the mind of the applicant, the allegation raised in the transfer application should prima facie at least be corroborated and transfer of a case cannot be allowed merely on the whims of a litigant. Attention has been drawn to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. District Judge Balli and 16 Others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103, in which it has been held as follows:"
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the foundation of transfer of the case from the court of Principal Judge, Family court, to any other family court is stated in paragraph 12 of the affidavit filed along with the application, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"12. That on many occasion applicant has seen the respondent going in the chamber of Principal Judge, Family Court after court timing and staying there was 1/2 to 1 hour, which creates doubt over impartiality of present presiding officer before whom the present case is pending."
7. From perusal of the same as also the judgments relied by learned AGA, it is found that the allegation raised in the transfer application should at least be corroborated, where there is no such corroboration, the transfer of a case cannot be allowed merely on the whims of the litigant.
8. The position as it stands is that merely on the basis of bald and vague allegations, without there being any corroboration, the transfer application was moved without corroborating the same is not tenable.
9. In view of the facts, reasons and discussion made hereinabove, the present application is mis-conceived and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2025
Nitesh
