HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No.15 of 2008 Lalit Kumar S/o Sri Beerbal Singh ……Petitioner Versus State & another ……Respondents Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. S. K. Shandilya, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. This is a petition under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking transfer of Complaint Case No.696/2007 tilted as ‘Sanjay Prasar Vs. Lalit Kumar’ from the court of IInd Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar to the court of any other District of the State of Uttarakhand. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint case No.696/2007 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the court of IInd Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The petitioner has stated in his petition that respondent no.2 is an influential Advocate and due to his influence he is unable to contest the proceedings in the District Haridwar. The petitioner has engaged two counsels, namely Sri Sudhir Tyagi and Sri Ujagar Singh Panwar. Both these counsel have withdrawn their vakalatnama due to the influence of respondent no.2 and other advocates. The petitioner wants that the case may be transferred from Haridwar to any other District of the State of Uttarakhand. This Court vide order dated 11.06.2008 directed the District Judge, Haridwar to submit his comments as to whether the allegation levelled by the petitioner in the transfer petition are true or false. Learned District Judge has submitted his comments vide communication dated 19.07.2008 that Sanjay Prasar, Advocate – respondent no.2 practices on the taxation side and he has no influence over the judicial officers. It was further submitted by the learned District Judge that Sri Sudhir Tyagi and Sri Ujagar Singh Panwar, Advocates were engaged by the petitioner, but they have withdrawn their vakalatnama. There is no averment in the petition that the Bar Association of Haridwar has made any resolution not to make parvi in favour of the present petitioner. It has not been stated in the petition that the petitioner has tried to appoint any other lawyers in Haridwar. If he was not getting any counsel he could have contacted with Bar Association and should have obtained a certificate from the bar association that no advocate could appear for the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 06.04.2009 LSR