Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The learned Sessions Judge had obtained comments of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the allegations made in the transfer application moved by the applicant. The Presiding Officer stated in his comments that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant had been heard and decided by his predecessor officer and thereafter the police had conducted an investigation and submitted a final report and a protest application filed by the applicant was pending in the Court. The accused-opposite party had moved an application under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. and notice of the application had been issued to the applicant. The protest application filed by the applicant and the application under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused (the opposite party no.3 in the present application) were pending in the same court. However, those cases had not been connected and the Presiding Officer also informed the Session Judge that the accused was not being heard on the protest application filed by the applicant.

10. Although, there is no material to dispute the factual averments made in the impugned order that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has not been tagged with the protest application filed by the applicant and that the accused-opposite party no. 3 is not being provided any hearing in the protest application filed by the applicant, the applicant in person insisted with his submissions on the merits of the case. He has relied upon three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has annexed extracts of the judgments in the cases of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, Father Thomas Vs. State of U.P and Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt of U.P. and others.

28. The Presiding Officer of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report to the Session Judge stating that the protest application filed by the applicant and the application under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no.3 are pending in the same court. However, those cases had not been connected and the Presiding Officer also informed the Session Judge that the accused was not being heard on the protest application filed by the applicant. This fact could not be disputed by the applicant.

30. As the applicant could not point that his protest application filed against the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer has been tagged with the application under 195/340 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 3 and it could not be established that the trial Court has provided opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 3 in the protest application filed by the applicant and he could not point out any illegality in the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 16.02.2024.