Summary
The Supreme Court refused transfer of a criminal case from Delhi to Prayagraj after rehearing a transfer petition whose earlier ex parte allowance had been recalled. The alleged events occurred in Delhi, where most prosecution witnesses, including twelve official witnesses, were located. Other litigation in Prayagraj and the accused’s asserted hardship did not establish exceptional grounds. Convenience had to account for the prosecution, witnesses and wider interests of justice, alongside the accused.
Issues
- Whether hardship and other pending litigation justified moving the criminal trial away from the place of the alleged offences and most witnesses.
Provisions considered
- Sections 177 and 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The ordinary place of trial and the absence of exceptional transfer grounds favoured retaining proceedings in Delhi. (¶ 14-19)
Held
- An offence ordinarily falls for trial in the local jurisdiction where it was committed. The FIR concerned alleged events in Delhi, and most prosecution witnesses, including twelve serving officials, were located there. (¶ 14-16)
- Transfer depends on the facts and reasonable grounds, rather than speculative apprehensions. A petitioner’s convenience cannot displace the convenience of witnesses, prosecution and other accused or the larger societal interest; the circumstances asserted here were insufficient. (¶ 17)
- Proceedings were to return from Prayagraj to the competent Rohini court. The petitioner remained free to seek interim relief from the appropriate Delhi court; continued interim protection was not granted by this order. (¶ 18-20)
Result
Transfer petition dismissed; proceedings directed back to the Rohini court in Delhi, with appearance on 15 April 2021. No costs.