Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39473 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8758 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Mukesh Kumar, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer: " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2021 (State Vs. Gulveer and others), under section 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, district Mathura and it is further prayed that the effect and operation of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 6, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2021 (State Vs. Gulveer and others), under section 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, district Mathura may remain stayed during the pendency of this Application before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such and further orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 4. It transpires from record that during pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial, it was brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge that Complaint Case No. 3109 of 2021 (Vijaya Kumari Vs. Mukesh and others) under Sections 452, 323, 307 I.P.C. is pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 10th, District, Mathura. 5. In view of above, court below by means of order dated 27.02.2025, summoned the record of aforementioned criminal case on the finding that aforementioned complaint case is a cross- version of the sessions trial inasmuch as the occurrence giving rise to the complaint case relates to a crime, which has occurred on the same day and at the same time. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Referring to Section 408 Cr.P.C., he submits that the power to transfer a criminal case from one court to another court is only with the Sessions Judge. Since the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Mathura is not the Sessions Judge as described in Section 408 Cr.P.C., therefore, order impugned in present application is without jurisdiction. In support of above, reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Court in Nitin Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 SCC OnLine All.2779. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the order impugned is liable to be quashed by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has opposed the present application. However, he could not dislodged the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application with reference to the record at this stage. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record this Court finds that Section 408 Cr.P.C. only empowers the Sessions Judge to transfer any case to any court. For ready reference Section 408 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein-below: (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this Sub-Section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. (2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative. (3) The provisions of Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7),and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under Sub-Section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under Sub-Section (1) of section 407, except that Sub-Section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand" rupees occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted. 9. From perusal of Section 408 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that power to transfer a criminal case is vested only with the Sessions Judge. Since the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-6, Mathura is not the Sessions Judge as described in the Code, therefore, order impugned is manifestly illegal. Moreover, the said view has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Nitin Jaiswal (supra). 10. In view of the discussion made above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 11. It is accordingly allowed. 12. The order impugned dated 27.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Mathura is set aside. 13. It is however provided that the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura will make a request to the Sessions Judge, Mathura for joint trial of the Complaint Case mentioned above and the Sessions Trial detailed above within a period of three weeks from today. The concerned Sessions Judge in turn shall pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of request so made by the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. 14. Registry shall inform the concerned Sessions Judge, Mathura, above this order accordingly. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad