Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.406, 177 – Trial pending in Delhi – Transfer petition seeking transfer to Prayagraj, U.P. – Allowed ex-parte – Complainant filed application for recall thereof – Dismissed – Review Petition – Allowed, ex-parte order recalled – Complainant impleaded as respondent no.4 in the transfer petition – De-novo hearing – Held: In a criminal case, the place of inquiry and trial has to be by the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the crime was allegedly committed as provided by s.177 – In the present case, cause of action as per the averments in the FIR are alleged to have arisen in New Delhi, where the matrimonial home of the Petitioner is situated – A criminal case ought to be inquired and tried ordinarily where the cause of action has accrued – Further, most of the prosecution witnesses are situated in Delhi –
12 official witnesses are serving in New Delhi – If the transfer petition is allowed, they would be required to travel from New Delhi to Prayagraj causing hinderance in performing their official duties – Transfer petition dismissed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.389 r/w s.34. Dismissing the transfer petition, the Court
Held: 1.1 In a criminal case, the place of inquiry and trial has to be by the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the crime was allegedly committed as provided by Section 177 of Cr.P.C. The cause of action as per the averments in the FIR are alleged to have arisen in New Delhi, where the matrimonial home of the Petitioner is situated. A criminal case ought to be inquired and tried ordinarily where the cause of action has accrued. In the present case, most of the prosecution witnesses are situated in Delhi. 12 official witnesses are serving in New Delhi. If the Transfer Petition is allowed, they would be required to travel from New Delhi to Allahabad (Prayagraj), which would cause hinderance in performing their official duties. The Transfer Petition is dismissed. The proceedings arising out of FIR No. 39 of 2016 which were transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh are directed to be transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate
461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. [Paras 14-16, 19] [911-A, B-C; 913-B-C; 914-C-D]
Ramesh v. State of T.N. (2005) 3 SCC 507 : [2005] 2 SCR 493; Manish Ratan v. State of M.P (2007)1 SCC 262: [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 226; Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103; Rajiv Modi v. Sanjay Jain (2009) 13 SCC 241 : [2009] 11 SCR 34; Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar (2011) 11 SCC 301; Amarendu Jyoti vs. State of Chattisgarh (2014) 12 SCC
362 : [2014] 13 SCR 1079; Babita Lila and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) (2016) 9 SCC 647 : [2016] 7 SCR 604; Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 384 : [2019] 6 SCR 577 ; Rhea Chakraborty vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654; Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 604 ; Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 6 SCC
358 : [2018] 3 SCR 732 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.