Allahabad High Court
Tanu @ Moni And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 4 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95277
Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 837 of 2025
Applicant :- Tanu @ Moni And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home) And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar whereby the transfer application no. 559 of 2024 arising out of case crime no. 282 of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 354-B, 324, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar pending before the A.C.J.M. Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar has been allowed and it has been held that proceedings of above mentioned case shall be conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar alongwith Session Trial No. 942 of 2022 arising out of case crime no. 280 of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. At the very outset on the query made by the Court as to whether this Court while entertaining the application U/S 529 of BNSS (483 CrPC) has got jurisdiction to pass an order in the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decisions of this Court and other High Courts in Vishnu Hari Dalmia and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Misc. Bench No. 8613 of 2011 (Vishnu Hari Dalmia and others vs. District and Sessions Judge Raebareli and others), decided on 8.12.2011, Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai and others vs. State of Gujrat and others, Criminal Appeal No. 914 of 2009, decided on 5.5.2009 and Lovely vs. State of Himichal Pradesh, Cr. MP(M) No. 1395 of 2020, decided on 7.10.2020, which were respectfully perused by this Court and it was found that under Section 529 BNSS (483 CrPC) the High Court is empowered to exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Sessions and Judicial Magistrates, subordinate to it, to ensure that the disposal of cases by such Courts are not only expeditious but in proper manner.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar mentioning therein that both the cases are cross-cases to each other, whereas the opposite party no.2 nowhere claims in her transfer application that the other case is a cross-case of her case, is erroneous and passed on wrong interpretation of facts which is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA opposed the prayer.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
7. Vide order dated 15.4.2025 an explanation was called for from the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. In compliance of the said direction, the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar has submitted his explanation dated 5.5.2025 which is found to be satisfactory but since the impugned order dated 22.1.2025 passed on the aforesaid transfer application was passed on wrong narration of facts, in my view, the same is liable to be set aside and the application is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly the present application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.1.2025 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar is set-aside.
9. The applicant, if chooses so, may move another transfer application before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar.
Order Date :- 4.6.2025
safi
