LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal cases should be transferred from one jurisdiction to another based on the petitioner’s convenience.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Harita Sunil Parab vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Judgment Date: March 28, 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 237
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel J., Rohinton Fali Nariman J., Navin Sinha J.
Can a criminal case be transferred to another jurisdiction simply because it is more convenient for the complainant? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a practicing advocate sought to transfer multiple criminal cases from Delhi and Ratlam to Mumbai, citing inconvenience and safety concerns. The Court ultimately ruled against the transfer, emphasizing that the convenience of the petitioner alone is not a sufficient ground for transferring cases, and that other factors, such as the location of witnesses and the interest of justice, must also be considered. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman, and Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The petitioner, Harita Sunil Parab, a practicing advocate in Mumbai, filed several criminal complaints in different jurisdictions. She lodged two FIRs in Delhi: one at the Tilak Marg Police Station (F.I.R. No.351 of 2016) under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and another at the Indirapuram Police Station, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) (F.I.R. No.1742 of 2016) under Sections 379, 1323, 376, 354, 506, 420, IPC. Additionally, she had a case registered against her in Ratlam under Sections 145(B), 146, 137 of the Railways Act (RTM-CR-641/2017).
The petitioner sought to transfer all these cases to Mumbai, citing her permanent residence and professional commitments there. She claimed that pursuing the cases in Delhi and Ratlam was causing her significant inconvenience and that she feared for her safety in Delhi. The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the transfer, arguing that the accused and most of the witnesses were located in Delhi, and that transferring the cases would cause them inconvenience.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | F.I.R. No.351/2016 registered at Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). |
| 2016 | F.I.R. No.1742/2016 registered at Indirapuram Police Station, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections 379, 1323, 376, 354, 506, 420, IPC. |
| 2016 | F.I.R. No.331/2016 registered under section 354-B, IPC, against one Shri Ram Chander, Auto Rickshaw Driver at Delhi. |
| 2016 | F.I.R. No.CD-PG-000260/2016 registered under Section 380 IPC, against the staff of Hotel Prince, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. |
| 16.02.2017 | Petitioner lodged a complaint before the Government Railway Police at Ratlam. |
| 2017 | RTM-CR-641/2017 registered against the petitioner under Sections 145(B), 146, 137 of the Railways Act in Ratlam. |
| 15.07.2017 | Petitioner submitted a written complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police. |
| March 28, 2018 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment denying the transfer petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that investigations had been completed in both Delhi FIRs (F.I.R. No.351 of 2016 and F.I.R. No.1742 of 2016), and charge sheets had been filed before the competent court. The Court observed that if the petitioner had any grievance regarding the investigation, she could file an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the principles governing the transfer of cases, particularly the concept of “reasonable apprehension” of injustice. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR 678, which established that a case can be transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. The Court emphasized that the apprehension must be reasonable and not merely based on conjectures and surmises.
The Court also considered the convenience of the parties, but clarified that it is not the sole criterion for transferring cases. The convenience of the prosecution, other accused, witnesses, and the larger interest of society must also be taken into account.
Arguments
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that:
- She is a permanent resident of Mumbai and a practicing advocate before the Mumbai High Court.
- She faced difficulties in pursuing the cases in Delhi due to her professional commitments in Mumbai.
- She had apprehensions about the fairness of the investigation and had received threats from the accused persons.
The respondent argued that:
- The accused and prosecution witnesses were all situated in Delhi.
- Transferring the cases to Mumbai would cause inconvenience to the respondent, who is also an advocate practicing in Delhi.
- The petitioner had also lodged other FIRs in Delhi, indicating that she was not entirely unfamiliar with the jurisdiction.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the criminal cases should be transferred from Delhi and Ratlam to Mumbai based on the petitioner’s claims of inconvenience and apprehension of unfairness.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the criminal cases should be transferred from Delhi and Ratlam to Mumbai based on the petitioner’s claims of inconvenience and apprehension of unfairness. | The Court held that the petitioner’s apprehension of harm was too nebulous a ground for transfer and that the convenience of the petitioner alone was not a sufficient reason to transfer the cases. The Court emphasized that the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses, and the larger interest of society must also be considered. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR 678 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to reiterate the principle that a case can be transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. |
| Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi , 2012 (5) SCC 706 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to emphasize that transferring cases can make early conclusion of the trial more difficult and expensive for the prosecution. |
| Parminder Kaur vs. State of U.P. , (2007) 15 SCC 307 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that the comparative inconvenience of the litigant parties is not the only criterion for transferring cases, and the court must also consider the inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the witnesses and the burden on the State Exchequer. |
Judgment
| Party Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s claim of inconvenience due to professional engagements in Mumbai. | The Court held that the petitioner’s inconvenience was not a sufficient ground for transfer, given the location of witnesses and other factors. |
| Petitioner’s apprehension of unfair investigation and threats. | The Court found the apprehension to be too nebulous and noted that sufficient remedies were available to the petitioner under the law. |
| Respondent’s argument that the accused and witnesses are in Delhi. | The Court acknowledged this as a valid point, highlighting the inconvenience that would be caused by transferring the cases. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR 678 | The Court reiterated the principle that a case can be transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, but the apprehension must be reasonable and not merely based on conjectures. |
| Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi , 2012 (5) SCC 706 | The Court noted that transferring cases can make early conclusion of the trial more difficult and expensive for the prosecution. |
| Parminder Kaur vs. State of U.P. , (2007) 15 SCC 307 | The Court highlighted that the comparative inconvenience of the litigant parties is not the only criterion for transferring cases, and the court must also consider the inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the witnesses and the burden on the State Exchequer. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The lack of a reasonable apprehension of injustice: The Court found that the petitioner’s fears were too vague and did not constitute a reasonable basis for transferring the cases.
- The convenience of all parties: The Court emphasized that the convenience of the petitioner alone was not sufficient, and the convenience of the prosecution, witnesses, and the larger interest of society must also be considered.
- The location of witnesses: The Court noted that most of the witnesses were located in Delhi, and transferring the cases would cause them significant inconvenience.
- The availability of other remedies: The Court pointed out that the petitioner had other remedies available under the law if she had grievances about the investigation or her safety.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of reasonable apprehension of injustice | 35% |
| Convenience of all parties, not just the petitioner | 30% |
| Location of witnesses | 25% |
| Availability of other remedies | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court stated, “The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises.” The Court also noted, “Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.” Additionally, the Court observed, “The petitioner is a person of means and it will not be difficult for her to attend the hearing of the criminal cases pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.”
Key Takeaways
✓ The convenience of the petitioner alone is not a sufficient ground for transferring criminal cases.
✓ A reasonable apprehension of injustice must be demonstrated, not merely a vague fear.
✓ The convenience of the prosecution, witnesses, and the larger interest of society must also be considered.
✓ The availability of other legal remedies should be considered before seeking a transfer.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than stating that if the petitioner had any grievance with the investigation, the remedy lies in filing an appropriate application under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court concerned, and any such application, if filed, has to be considered on its own merits by the concerned court in accordance with law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the convenience of the petitioner alone is not a sufficient ground for transferring criminal cases. The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in earlier judgments, emphasizing the need for a reasonable apprehension of injustice and the consideration of the convenience of all parties involved, including the prosecution, witnesses, and the larger interest of society. There was no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the transfer petitions filed by Harita Sunil Parab, holding that her claims of inconvenience and apprehension were not sufficient grounds for transferring the criminal cases from Delhi and Ratlam to Mumbai. The Court emphasized that the convenience of the petitioner alone is not the determining factor and that a reasonable apprehension of injustice must be demonstrated.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Transfer of Cases
Child Category: Code of Criminal Procedure
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure
Child Category: Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure
FAQ
Q: Can I transfer a criminal case simply because it is inconvenient for me to attend hearings in the current jurisdiction?
A: No, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the convenience of the petitioner alone is not a sufficient reason to transfer a criminal case. Other factors, such as the location of witnesses and the interest of justice, must also be considered.
Q: What does “reasonable apprehension of injustice” mean?
A: It means that there must be a genuine and well-founded fear that justice will not be done in the current jurisdiction. This apprehension must be based on concrete evidence, not just vague fears or assumptions.
Q: What should I do if I have concerns about the fairness of an investigation or my safety?
A: The Supreme Court has stated that sufficient remedies are available under the law. You can file an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned court to address these concerns.