Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Xyz vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 July, 2023
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 130/2023
XYZ PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The petitioner is the mother of the prosecutrix who is stated to be the victim of the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short “POCSO”) Act. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“(a) to allow this transfer petition and transfer the Crininal Case No.7000588 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.586 of 2017 titled as State vs. Avnesh Yadav pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO) Act Court No.1, District- Bareily Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Special Judge- POCSo Act/Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, North West District, New Delhi, Delhi or to any other Court of Competent jurisdiction.
(b) Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2.
The reason as to why the petitioner has sought for the transfer of the aforesaid proceeding from Bareilly at Uttar Pradesh Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.08.05 to 12:15:34 IST Reason: the Court of Special Judge-POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, North West District, Delhi is owing to the fact that the 1 prosecutrix, her mother and family reside at Delhi that it would be difficult for them to travel all the way to Bareilly which is about 300 Kilometers away from Delhi for the purpose of prosecution of the case. They also feel threatened for their life and liberty. They also apprehend that they may not be able to effectively prosecute the case in Bareilly owing to the distance and other factors.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that adequate protection would be provided to the prosecutrix and her mother whenever they travel to Bareilly for the purpose of prosecuting the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the accused respondent No.2 submitted that the witnesses are at Bareilly and the case has progressed sufficiently as evidence has commenced and, therefore, at this stage, the matter may not be transferred from the Court at Bareilly to the competent Court at Rohini, North West, Delhi.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, we find that the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 376D, 323 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The mother of prosecutrix (who stated to be the victim of the offences) has filed this petition, owing to grave apprehension in the matter of prosecuting the case before the Court at Bareilly, not only on account of the distance between Delhi and Bareilly but also feeling threatened and apprehensive for her life and safety of herself as well as the victim. On the other hand, it is also noted that the victim as well as her family reside at Delhi and bearing in mind 2 considerations of access to justice and also the efficacy of prosecution of the complaint of the case by the complainant as well as the mother of the prosecutrix, we find that the justice would be subserved in transferring the case from the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.1, District- Bareilly Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Special Judge-POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, North West District, New Delhi, Delhi.
The Transfer Petition is allowed.
Registry to communicate this order to the transferor court for taking steps in accordance with this order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. ( B.V. NAGARATHNA ) .......................J. ( UJJAL BHUYAN ) NEW DELHI;
JULY 27, 2023 3 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.15 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CRIMINAL) NO(S). 130/2023 XYZ Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 18450/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 18449/2023 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 27-07-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.
Mr. M.S. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Uzmi Jamel Husain, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Haris Usmani, Adv.
Ms. Kanika Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, Adv.
Ms. Neha Khan, Adv.
Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rahul Verma, Adv.
Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Gusain, Adv.
Mr. Akash, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Kasana, Adv.
Mr. Amod Kr. Bidhuri, Adv.
Mr. Yudhister Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Teejas Bhatia, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aakarsh Garg, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.4
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5