Sri Hari Singh vs State of U.P.& Ors.

K. L. Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and perused the material brought on record. I have also seen the counteraffidavit filed by the learned A. G. A. and the rejoinderaffidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Opposite party No. 2 has been served with the notice of this application by registered post, but neither any person appeared on behalf of the opposite parties nor any counteraffidavit has been filed to deny the allegations made by the applicant apprehending the insecurity and injury to the life of the witnesses. The police has not been able so far to provide security to the applicant and the witnesses.

I am, therefore, satisfied that in view of the insecurity of the applicant and the witnesses, it is expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the case from Haridwar to adjoining district Dehra Dun. Consequently, this application under Section 407, Cr. P. C. is hereby allowed. The Sessions Trial No. 362 of 1990, State v. Raju and others under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby transferred from the Court of Session Judge, Haridwar to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Sessions Judge Haridwar and to the Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun for information and necessary compliance at an early date.

Application allowed.