Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77095 Court No. - 77 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 138 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicants-Durgesh and Vivek have filed this petition under Section 447 B.N.S.S., 2023 for transfer of Sessions Case No. 628 of 2024; titled State vs. Durgesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 440 of 2022, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Highway, District Mathura pending before Sessions Judge, Mathura to any other court of competent jurisdiction at District Agra. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the son of opposite party no. 2-complainant is married to the sister of the applicants and the subject trial is pending since 2022. Learned counsel submits that the sister of the applicants lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC etc. against the complainant's son, which is pending adjudication at Mathura, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the applicants in the said case, and to add to the agony of the applicants, as a result of influence exercised by the opposite party no. 2, no lawyer is accepting the case of the applicants to represent them in the court. Learned counsel submits that in a period of three years, the accused have engaged six lawyers. In these circumstances, he prays for transfer of the case. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this court does not find any merit in the case, as concededly, the applicants are witnesses in the case lodged by their father under Section 498A IPC against the son of the opposite party no. 2 and others, and no ground for transfer of the said case has been made out. The argument that the lawyers engaged so far refused to represent the applicants as a result of influence exercised by opposite party no. 2 is also not believable, as during the course of hearing, nothing has been shown that any of these counsels ever withdrew their power of attorney by making statements before the trial court. The case is pending since last three years, and at this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has produced the deposition sheet of PW-1 to point out that the prosecution witness was cross- examined by the defence counsel namely Nishant Raghav. Thus, it is clear that the applicants have raised a baseless ground to seek transfer of the case, consequently, the applicants deserve to be saddled with costs. Resultantly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-. The cost to be deposited within one month before the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad, who will, thereafter, forward the same to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad