Uttarakhand High Court
Navratan Kumar Shant And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 October, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Transfer Application No.17 of 2025
Navratan Kumar Shant and others ..........Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ............. Respondents
Present : Mr. R.K. Rawat and Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocates for the applicants.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey and Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocates for
respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant criminal transfer application,
filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 ("BNSS, 2023"), the applicant seeks transfer of Criminal Case
No.723 of 2024, Ranveer Singh Vs. Navratan Kumar and others,
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"), from the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar to some
other courts within the territorial jurisdiction of District Nainital.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. According to the applicants, the sister of the petitioner
no.1 was married to the respondent no.2 on 07.12.2020.
Subsequently, the sister of petitioner no.1 was harassed and
tortured. She died on 12.02.2024 within four years of marriage.
But, the respondent no.2 falsely revealed that the death occurred
due to kidney failure. On 17.03.2024, the respondent no.2 called
the applicant no.1 to settle the matter. When the applicants
reached there, the respondent no.2 straightly dialed 112 and called
the police and the respondent no.2 made a false story. The police
did not find anything.
4. According to the applicants, the intention of the
respondent no.2 was to trap the applicants in a false case.
Subsequent to it, the applicants filed FIR No.517 of 2024, dated
12.06.2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 313, 304-B IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola
Moradabad ("the FIR"). Thereafter, as a counter blast, according to
the applicants, the respondent no.2 filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code")
in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, which was subsequently converted
into a complaint case, in which, cognizance was taken against the
applicants on 23.12.2024, which is basis of the case.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in case, the case
remains in the court at Kashipur, the respondent no.2 may further
implicate the petitioner in some other false cases. Therefore, the
case may be transferred in any court within District Nainital.
6. It has been objected to by the respondent no.2 on the
ground that the sole intention of the applicants is to harass and
extort money from the respondent no.2. Initially, when they lodged
FIR, police did not find anything and closed the investigation.
Thereafter, the offence was done to the respondent no.2, of which,
he filed an application, in which, cognizance has been taken and
the case is pending.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
the sister of the applicant no.1 was married with the respondent
no.2, who died within four years of marriage; when on a request of
the respondent no.2, the applicants visited the house of the
respondent no.2, he tried to trap them in a false case and
subsequently, he filed an application under Section 156(3) of the
Code on false allegations, which has been converted into a
complaint case, which is basis of the case. He submits that, in
case, the case remains pending in the Kashipur court, the
respondent no.2, who is an Advocate, may trap the applicants in
any other false case. Therefore, the case may be transferred.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 would submit that the entire basis of transfer is false. He
submits that the wife of the respondent no.2 died as a natural
death, despite that an FIR of dowry and other offences was lodged
against the respondent no.2, in which, the police submitted Final
Report, against which, protest petition has already been rejected.
He submits that these facts are concealed by the applicants. He
further submits that against the cognizance order taken in the
case, a C-528 petition was filed in the Court, which has already
been dismissed.
9. Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 provides the procedure for
transfer of cases. It reads as follows:-
"447. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.--
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court--
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise;
or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of
this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties
or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order--
(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not
qualified under sections 197 to 205 (both inclusive), but in other
respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals,
be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority
to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of
Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried
before itself.
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................"
10. It is not the apprehension of the applicants that they
may not be meted out the fair and partial inquiry or trial at
Kashipur court. It is not a case that they are also in some difficulty,
if the case remains pending in the Kashipur court. What is being
apprehended is that, if the case remains pending in the Kashipur
court, the respondent no.2, who is an Advocate, may further trap
the applicant in some false cases.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 would submit that, in fact, the applicant no.1
is also a lawyer. It has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the
applicants saying that the applicant no.1 is not a lawyer, but his
younger brother is a lawyer.
12. In fact, there is no basis for transferring the case. The
reasons are not such, which may warrant the transfer of the case.
Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to allow the instant
application. Accordingly, the instant application deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
13. The criminal transfer application is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.10.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd
504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
KANOJIA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D
D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE4
0699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.11.03 16:15:44 +05'30'
