Uttarakhand High Court
Rukshida vs Intzar on 24 July, 2026
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
UKHC010048662026
C447/13/2026
Rukshida --Applicant
Versus
Intzar --Respondent
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel
for respondent.
2. By means of the present Transfer
application under Section 447 of the BNSS,
2023, the applicant seeks transfer of
Complaint Case No. 1209 of 2023, Rukshida
vs. Intizar and Others, pending in the court
of the Ist Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) /
Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District
Haridwar to a competent court of
jurisdiction at Dehradun.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the grounds on which the
transfer has been sought are that the
respondent has extended threat to life and
safety of the applicant and her family
members, resulting in a real, imminent, and
continuous threat perception. The applicant,
being a woman, already under severe mental
and emotional distress, is unable to freely
and fearlessly pursue the proceedings at
Roorkee due to the hostile and unsafe
atmosphere created by the respondent. He
would further submit that on 15.10.2022
when the applicant along with her father
and brother had gone to attend the court
proceedings in connection with a criminal
case instituted by the applicant against the
respondent, the respondent, along with his
brother and some unknown persons,
deliberately intercepted them within the
court premises and started abusing them in
abusive language. In the said incident, the
respondent openly threatened the applicant
and her family members, and declared that
if they do not withdraw all the cases,
maintenance proceedings, and other
complaints filed against them, they would
face serious consequences and dire
consequences, including threats to their life
and safety. The respondent has used his
resources to intimidate them with the
intention of creating fear and pressure so
that the applicant may be compelled to
abandon the legal proceedings. The said
incident created a grave atmosphere of fear
and insecurity for the applicant, and clearly
demonstrates the continuous attempts of
the respondent to obstruct the course of
justice and pressure the applicant into
withdrawing the cases filed against them. In
respect of the said incident, the father of the
applicant has lodged an FIR No.32 of 2023
under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 of the
IPC and the police have filed a charge sheet
under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC
and copy of the FIR is also placed on record.
On these grounds, and on the threat
perception, the transfer is being sought from
Roorkee to a court of competent jurisdiction
at Dehradun.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent has referred to paragraph 16 of
his counter affidavit, wherein he has stated
that to implicate the respondent in false
case a story has been created by the
applicant and her family members, because
no incident has happened in the court
premises, and there is no independent
witness or CCTV footage or any recording
produced by the applicant before the
authority. Only to harass the respondent
applicant made the alleged story, and
applicant did not complain to the concerned
court of the said incident and it is only a
pressure tactic adopted by the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, and after going through the
record, it is clear that the alleged incident,
for which the FIR was lodged, admittedly,
occurred on 15.10.2022, and the FIR has
been lodged only on 12.01.2023 at Police
Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar. From
the record, it is not borne out that whether
the said incident was ever reported to the
court of Ist Additional Civil Judge / Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
6. It further needs to be noted that
earlier, when the incident occurred, the
Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020
was in vogue, and the learned counsel for
the applicant has placed the copy of the
Uttarakhand Witness Protection Scheme,
2025 before the Court that the earlier Act
has now been repealed and replaced by the
Uttarakhand Witness Protection Scheme,
2025.
7. Perusal of the Uttarakhand Witness
Protection Scheme, 2025 would reveal that
in Para 5 thereof, there is provision for
submission of application to the competent
authority for seeking witness protection
order. Earlier also it was open to the
applicant to seek protection as a witness,
and even now, under the Uttarakhand
Witness Protection Scheme, 2025, it is open
for the applicant to seek protection.
8. During the submissions, learned
counsel for the applicant made the
submission that the complainant needs to
attend the court on each and every date,
being the complainant. Thus, because of the
threat perception, there is a great difficulty
for her to attend the court on each and every
date, and on these grounds, sought transfer
from the court at Roorkee to a competent
court of jurisdiction at Dehradun.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent has already been submitted that
the aforesaid FIR has been lodged only to
create a false case and as a pressure tactic.
10. Since, the Uttarakhand Witness
Protection Scheme, 2025 is in vogue in the
State of Uttarakhand, hence it is open to the
applicant to prefer appropriate application
under Para 5 thereof and seek protection. So
far as the difficulty being faced by the
applicant, inasmuch as the applicant has to
attend court on each and every date of the
case, provisions of Section 228 of the BNSS,
2023 corresponding to Section 205 of the
Cr.P.C., provide for dispensing with personal
attendance of the accused. If the applicant/
complainant has any difficulty to attend on
each and every date, it is always open for
her to seek exemption under the aforesaid
provisions.
11. In the present case, during the
submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent also apprised the Court that the
applicant has already been examined as a
prosecution witness (PW-3) on 27.11.2025.
12. In such an eventuality, the alleged
threat perception does not appear to subsist
or remain anymore and the grounds on
which the transfer is being sought and
pressed do not subsist any longer.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, no ground is made out for
transfer of the case from the court at
Roorkee to the court of competent
jurisdiction at Dehradun. Therefore, the
present Transfer Application is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
However, it is made clear that it will be open
for the applicant to seek exemption under
the appropriate provisions as indicated
hereinabove.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
24-07-2026
JKJ/
