Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3298 (UTT)

SURBHI GUPTA v. VIRENDRA DHIMAN

C407/4/2023 · 2025-06-27

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C407 No. 4 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Applicant has sought transfer of proceedings of Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2022 filed by respondent in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar to a Court of competent jurisdiction in District Nainital. 4. It transpires that respondent no. 2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC making certain allegation against the applicant. The said application was rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar, vide order dated 16.07.2022. 5. Respondent No. 2 has challenged the said order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in a Criminal Revision, which is numbered as 331/2022. 6. Applicant has sought transfer of proceedings of said criminal revision. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, opposed the prayer for transfer by contending that applicant’s personal presence would not be needed before the District Judge, Haridwar, as it is not a case where evidence has to be recorded and the criminal revision can be decided based on legal submissions made by learned counsel representing the applicant. 8. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned State Counsel. 9. Since applicant’s testimony is not to be recorded in a criminal revision, therefore, the prayer for transfer made by her does not appear to be justified. 10. The transfer application is rejected. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.06.2025 Navin