Whether Non-Participation In A Proceeding Of A Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Has Civil Consequences?

 Taking note of Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, we are of the view that it cannot be said that non participationin a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal

rights, of the party who seeks for transfer of such proceeding

is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences

as is evident from the aforesaid provision. In such

circumstances and taking into account the distance of the

court where the case sought to be transferred is pending and

the place where the petitioner-wife is presently residing, we

are inclined to allow the captioned transfer petition.

Consequently, Transfer Petition is allowed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.973 OF 2023

POONAM ANKUR PAWAR  Vs ANKUR ASHOKBHAI PAWAR 

Dated: 27.07.2023

Print Page

What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the court under civil law and criminal law?

 While the question of territorial

jurisdiction in civil cases, revolves mainly around (i) cause of

action; or (ii) location of the subject matter of the suit or (iii) the

residence of the defendant etc., according as the case may be,

the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal Cases revolves

around (i) place of commission of the offence or (ii) place where

the consequence of an act, both of which constitute an offence,

ensues or (iii) place where the accused was found or (iv) place

where the victim was found or (v) place where the property in

respect of which the offence was committed, was found or (vi)

place where the property forming the subject matter of an

offence was required to be returned or accounted for, etc.,

according as the case may be.

19. While jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by (i)

territorial and (ii) pecuniary limits, the jurisdiction of a criminal

court is determined by (i) the offence and/or (ii) the offender.

But the main difference between the question of jurisdiction

raised in civil cases and the question of jurisdiction arising in

criminal cases, is twofold.

(i) The first is that the stage at which an objection as to

jurisdiction, territorial or pecuniary, can be raised, is

regulated in civil proceedings by Section 21 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no provision in the Criminal

Procedure Code akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

(ii) The second is that in civil proceedings, a plaint can be

returned, under Order VII, Rule 10, CPC, to be presented to

the proper court, at any stage of the proceedings. But in

criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a

Magistrate under section 201 of the Code, to return a

complaint. The power is limited in the sense (a) that it is

available before taking cognizance, as section 201 uses the

words “Magistrate who is not competent to take

cognizance” and (b) that the power is limited only to

complaints, as the word “complaint”, as defined by section 2(d),

does not include a “police report”.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.456 OF 2019

KAUSHIK CHATTERJEE  Vs STATE OF HARYANA 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

Print Page

Whether Chief Judge Small causes court has jurisdiction to transfer case from one court to another?

Whether the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court could have allowed the Transfer Application No. 294 of 2014 by transferring the proceedings from one Court to another Court in the Small Causes Court. In so far as the powers of the Learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court are concerned, they are circumscribed by Section 10 of the PSCC Act, 1882. The said Section 10 of the PSCC Act, 1882 for the sake of ready reference can be gainfully reproduced hereinunder:--

"Subject to such rules, the Chief Judge may, from time to time, make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the Court among the various Judges thereof."

A reading of the said Section 10, therefore, discloses that the provision confers upon the Learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court an administrative power to make arrangements as he thinks fit for the distribution of the business of the Court amongst the various Judges therein. Now, coming to Section 24 of the CPC, the said provision confers a power to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings of the High Court or the District Court either sou-moto or on an application made by any of the parties. The power is therefore, conferred by the said provision is on the High Court or the District Court and the mention of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court is conspicuously absent. In view of the fact that the powers under Section 24 of the CPC have not been conferred upon the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, the power if any that can be exercised by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court is therefore, only under Section 10 of the PSCC Act, 1882. A similar situation had arisen in Smt. Manharbala's case (supra), wherein a party had applied for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court in the Small Causes Court on the ground that the Learned Judge before whom the suit was pending was biased. The said application was allowed by the Learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court as a consequence of which a matter had reached this Court by way of Civil Revision Application No. 1405 of 2000. The Learned Single Judge of this Court as indicated above on the touchstone of the provisions of Section 10 of the PSCC Act, 1882 and Section 24 of the CPC came to a conclusion that the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court is not vested with the power to transfer proceedings from one Court to another Court and that the said power is only vested with the High Court or the District Court. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 11033 of 2014

Decided On: 24.11.2015

 Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. Ltd. Vs. Neelam V. Rajani and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Savant, J.

Citation: 2016(5) Bom CR 442

Print Page

Whether case can be transferred as per convenience of witness?

I have bestowed my attention to the facts and submissions. The facts are narrated, shorn of un-necessary details, as in this proceeding for transfer it is not necessary to deal with serious contentions which the parties traded in their pleadings in the suit. The plaintiff is a Driver working in APSRTC of Macherla Depot is not in dispute. He brought the suit against the defendants, including the petitioners herein, for partition stating inter alia that the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition being joint family properties. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the suit for partition can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction one of the immovable properties liable for partition is situate. In the case on hand, item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property is situated within the limits or territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gurazala of Guntur District. Even the property mentioned in item No. 2 of the plaint schedule is situated in Nalgonda District. Therefore, the Court at Gurazala is having jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit is not in dispute. Reference may also be had to Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that where a suit is to obtain relief respecting immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. In Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and others (MANU/SC/0565/2002 : [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 19) the Supreme Court held as follows: 'Plaintiff is dominus litis, that is, master of, or having dominion over, the case. He is the person who has carriage and control of an action. In case of conflict of jurisdiction, the choice ought to lie with the plaintiff to choose the forum best suited to him unless there be a rule of law excluding access to a forum of plaintiffs choice or permitting recourse to a forum will be opposed to public policy or will be an abuse of the process of law.' It is only baldly alleged in the petition that transfer as sought for, if permitted, would be convenient to the witnesses to be examined in the suit, without giving names of the proposed witnesses and their places of residence. Further, the 2nd defendant is a businessman and the 5th defendant who is his daughter is a student. Whereas the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, who is supporting the plaintiff in the present proceeding, are both employed and working respectively as Driver in RTC, Macherla Depot and Teacher in a School at Rentachintala, which are within the local limits of the Courts at Guntur. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners, defendants 2 and 5, cannot be permitted to pick and choose the Court at Ranga Reddy District on the ground that it suits their convenience and seek transfer of the plaintiffs suit, more particularly when they are unable to show any special circumstances to accept their plea. Further, on weighing the conveniences and inconveniences of the parties and the competing probabilities and on consideration of the legal principles applicable, this Court is of the considered view that the choice of the plaintiff deserves to be accepted and shall prevail as the choice lies with the plaintiff to choose the forum best suited to him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 599 of 2016

Decided On: 29.12.2016

Pallerla Srinivasa Reddy and Ors. Vs. Pallerla Subba Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M. Seetharama Murti, J.

Citation: AIR 2017(NOC)764 HYD

Print Page

When court should transfer case where husband is residing?

Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, more particularly when the husband is taking care of the child who is nine years old and is suffering from malignant disease, in our opinion, the High Court should have used its discretion in favour of the Petitioner-husband. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8380 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15945/2015)

Decided On: 29.08.2016

 Amandeep Goyal Vs. Yogesh Rani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anil R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 15 SCC 267

Print Page

Whether one high court can transfer divorce proceeding from one state to another?

 Section 25 of Code of Civil Procedure clearly envisages that the power relating to the inter-State transfer and transfer of cases from one High Court to another High Court or its subordinate Courts is vested solely on this Court and not on the High Courts. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions, the High Court of Bombay does not have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from a subordinate Court of Madras High Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Bombay High Court. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2380 of 2016)

Decided On: 27.02.2017

 P. Ayyanar Pothi Vs. Supriya Ayyanar Pothi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 2695

Print Page

Whether exparte decree can be set aside on ground of non-communication of order of transfer of case?

Civil - Ex parte decree - Setting aside of - Application for condonation of delay - Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Petitionertenant filed application for condonation of delay for setting aside an exparte decree against Petitioner, on ground that Petitioner was not intimated or given notice about the transfer of proceedings from one court to another court, in an eviction petition filed by Respondent-landlord - However, same came to be dismissed - Hence, the present Writ Petition - Held, non-communication of transfer of matters from one Court to another and further proceeding and no communication from the Advocate, if causes injustice and results into exparte decree of eviction need to be considered as a sufficient ground/reason to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree in the interest of justice - Petitioner has shown sufficient cause and absence and delay was not malafide and intentional

"Non-communication of transfer of matters from one Court to another and no communication from the Advocate, if causes injustice and results into exparte decree of eviction need to be considered as a sufficient ground/ reason to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree in the interest of justice"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7027 of 2008

Decided On: 10.11.2008

 Ratilal son of Jivanbhai Lalji

Vs.

 Kuvarben Wd/o Chabildas Patel and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Print Page

Whether Copy of order of transfer of case placed on notice board of bar association is sufficient notice to adovcate?

Here in the present case, however, we have already found that the revision petitioners abstained from the appearance and failed to file written statement. Thereafter only, the record and papers were sent to the District Court and upon return of the same, the suit was transferred not beyond the Ahmednagar District Court premises but from one court to another court in the same premises. It is well known that in such circumstances, a general transfer order issued by the Principal District Judge placed on the notice board of the Bar Association is sufficient notice to the Advocates for the parties. The Advocates had, however, filed their no instruction pursis and no other Advocates were engaged by the present respondents. In view of these facts, when the suit was filed in the year 1989, now remanding the case again back to the trial court would be a travesty of justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application Nos. 112, 113 and 114 of 2012

Decided On: 20.07.2015

 Rameshchandra Daulal Soni and Ors.

Vs.

 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.T. Joshi, J.

Citation:2015 Bom Rent cases 399

Print Page

Whether doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable for transfer of Case?

We have considered the above suggestions. In this respect, we
may also refer to the doctrine of forum non conveniens which can be
applied in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest of justice.
Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to
stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient
and there is any other forum which is considered to be more
convenient for the interest of all the parties at the ends of justice. In
Modi Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte.
Ltd.(2003)4 SCC 341
 this Court observed:
“19. In  Spiliada Maritime Corpn. V. Cansulex Ltd. (1986)3 All ER 843 case the House of Lords laid down
the following principle:
“The fundamental principle
applicable to both the stay of English
proceedings on the ground that some
other forum was the appropriate
forum and also the grant of leave to
serve proceedings out of the
jurisdiction was that the court would
choose that forum in which the case
could be tried more suitably for the
interest of all the parties and for the
ends of justice.”
The criteria to determine which was a more appropriate forum,
for the purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the court would look
for that forum with which the action had the most real and
substantial connection in terms of convenience or expense,
availability of witnesses, the law governing the relevant
transaction and the places where the parties resided or carried
on business. If the court concluded that there was no other
available forum which was more appropriate than the English
court, it would normally refuse a stay. If, however, the court
concluded that there was another forum which was prima facie
more appropriate, the court would normally grant a stay unless
there were circumstances militating against a stay. It was
noted that as the dispute concerning the contract in which the
proper law was English law, it meant that England was the
appropriate forum in which the case could be more suitably
tried.”
Though these observations have been made in the context of
granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in
regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings
are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the plaintiff is the dominus litis
but if more than one court has jurisdiction, court can determine which
is the convenient forum and lay down conditions in the interest of
justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be availed.Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 para 30
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
 TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1912 OF 2014
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM 
V
HARISH NAGAM 
Dated:MARCH 9, 2017.
Citation:(2017)4 SCC150,2017(4) MHLJ764

Print Page

Whether application for breach of injunction order can be filed in transferee court if case is transferred?

 I squarely fall in line with the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court and on the foregoing analogy hold that whenever a suit, after passing an interlocutory order, is transferred to a subordinate Court, the business of the transferring Court will be deemed to have been transferred to the subordinate Court and any motion for disobedience of an order passed by the transferring Court can lie before the Court to which the matter has been transferred.

9. It is Rule 2-A of Order 39 which makes provision for disobedience of an ad interim injunction passed in terms of Rule 2. Therefore, an application projecting disobedience can be safely termed to be an offshoot of the action taken under Rule 2. After the transfer of business to the transferee Court, it will be the latter Court which will have jurisdiction to try this application. This is particularly so when Rule 2-A expressly makes it clear that "the Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred may pass orders" in a particular mode.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

C.O.A. No. 5 of 1988

Decided On: 22.02.1996

Arjan Khajuria Vs.  Parkash Chand and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Mir, J.
Citation : AIR 1997 J and K 34

Print Page

Whether case can be transferred as accused is old aged and will have to travel long distance?

 Sofar as a transfer plea is concerned, valid and acceptable reasons have
to be demonstrated.  In the present case, transfer is sought for on the
ground of inconvenience of the petitioner on account of his age as well as
his present place of residence.

 Ofcourse, it is quite natural in the present set up, he has to undergo
some inconvenience.  But, the Court has to see whether by this his defence is
prejudiced.  He has engaged a counsel to defend himself.  Except the stated
inconvenience, there is no bottleneck for defending himself as against the
charges levelled against him.  On account of the said inconvenience, we
cannot transfer the case, because it does not appear to be a valid ground.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 12.08.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

Crl.O.P. (MD) No.14616 of 2016 
and 
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6853 of 2016 

Viswam                                          ... Petitioner / Accused
vs.
State, rep.by

Print Page

Whether case can be transferred from one court to another on ground that Judge has dismissed 45 appeals in three days?

As stated in the first paragraph, the only ground on which
the petitioners seek transfer is that the VI Additional Fast Track
Court Judge had dismissed 45 appeals in a span of three days.  As
we have pointed out at the threshold, this cannot be a ground for an
apprehension, much less a reasonable apprehension, that the
petitioners may not get justice.  When Courts, which move at snails
pace, are ridiculed, we do not know how Courts that proceed on fast
track could also be condemned. These petitions are completely
devoid of merits. Therefore, they are dismissed. 

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.704of 2014 

Dated:21-06-2016 

Tadikonda Surya Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy .
Vs
Tammana Seethamahalakshmi and 3 others. 
Coram:
 SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN           
AND  
SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA           

Print Page

What are essential factors to considered while deciding transfer application?

Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or (2000) 7 SCC 129  merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:-

(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and

(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or  are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.

Supreme Court of India

Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2010

Bench: D.K. Jain, V.S. Sirpurkar, G.S. Singhvi

REPORTABLE

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 12981 OF 2008

Citation:AIR 2011 SC 1549

Print Page

When court will not allow inter district transfer of case?

 Having heard the learned counsel for the
Applicant   as   well   as   learned   A.P.P.   and
considering   the   Judgment   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme
Court   in   the   matter   of   "  Nahar   Singh   Yadav   and
another   vs.   Union   of   India",   cited   supra,   it   is
clear   that   comparative   hardship   is   a   matter   of
consideration.   In   the   present   matter,   the
Applicant   is   claiming   that   he   would   suffer
hardship   because   of   medical   reason.   However,   if
copy of charge sheet, which has been shown at the
time   of   arguments,   is   perused,   there   are   28
witnesses.   The   witnesses   are   from   Nandurbar   area
and asking so many witnesses/persons to travel to
Nashik for the convenience of the Applicant, does
not appear to be justified. Experience shows as to
how   at   times   trials   prolong   and   witnesses   are

required to keep coming again and get frustrated.
Inconvenience of so many people cannot be ignored
only   because   Applicant   will   be   put   to   some
inconvenience. If he is under suspension, time is
at his disposal.
 As   regards   the   apprehension   that   the
Applicant would not get fair trial, there does not
appear basis for the same, other than pointing out
that  various  actions  were taken  by the Applicant
against the distributors, dealers and shop owners.
The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Nahar Singh Yadav and another vs. Union
of   India",  cited   supra,   also   mentions   in   factor
(v)   that   there   has   to   be   “some   material”   from
which it can be inferred that some persons are so
hostile that they are interfering or are likely to
interfere   either   directly   or   indirectly   with   the
course   of   justice.   Merely   because   the   Applicant
has taken action against some persons, the same is
not  sufficient  to show that  there  is possibility

of   the   persons   going   out   to   the   extent   of
influencing  the  witnesses  and taking  the risk of
charge   of   tampering   with   evidence.   Again,   as
stated, most witnesses are Government Officials. I
do not think that ground is made out for transfer
of the Sessions Case.
                                       
     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2014
Sanjay Babasaheb Deshmukh,

       VERSUS             
The State of Maharashtra,   

              CORAM:  A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
              DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2014
 Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)1014

Print Page

Principles to be followed by court in case application for transfer of case is filed

The aforesaid passage, as we perceive, clearly lays
emphasis on sustenance of majesty of law by all concerned.
Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. An
order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine
or merely because an interested party has expressed some
apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power
has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations,
where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to
the trial. There has to be a real apprehension that there
would be miscarriage of justice. 
In the instant case, we are disposed to think that
apprehension that has been stated is absolutely mercurial
and cannot remotely be stated to be reasonable. The
learned single Judge has taken an exception to the remarks
given by the learned trial judge and also opined about non-

examination of any witness by him. As far as the first
aspect is concerned, no exception can be taken to it. The
learned Sessions Judge, while hearing the application for
transfer of the case, called for remarks of the learned trial
judge, and in such a situation, he is required to give a reply
and that he has done. He is not expected to accept the
allegations made as regards his conduct and more so while
nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the
same. The High Court could not have deduced that he
should have declined to conduct the trial. This kind of
observation is absolute impermissible in law, for there is no
acceptable reason on the part of the learned trial judge to
show his disinclination. Solely because an accused has filed
an application for transfer, he is not required to express his
disinclination. He is required under law to do his duty. He
has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure
put by the accused by making callous allegations. He is not
expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations
and recuse himself from the case. If this can be the
foundation to transfer a case, it will bring anarchy in the
adjudicatory process. The unscrupulous litigants will

indulge themselves in court haunting. If they are allowed
such room, they do not have to face the trial before a court
in which they do not feel comfortable. The High Court has
gravely erred in this regard. So far as the non-examination
of the witnesses is concerned, as the factual score would
uncurtain, the matter had travelled to the High Court in
revision assailing the order passed under Section 319 CrPC.
Be that as it may, the High Court has not adverted to the
issue who was seeking adjournment and what was the role
of the learned trial judge. Grant of adjournment could have
been dealt with by the High Court in a different manner. It
has to be borne in mind that a judge who discharges his
duty is bound to commit errors. The same have to be
rectified. The accused has never moved the superior court
seeking its intervention for speedy trial. The High Court has
innovated a new kind of approach to transfer the case. The
High Court should have kept in view the principles stated in
K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 540
 which are to the following
effect:-

“… It has also to be remembered that the lower
judicial officers mostly work under a charged
atmosphere and are constantly under a
psychological pressure with all the contestants
and their lawyers almost breathing down their
necks—more correctly up to their nostrils. They
do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere
of the higher courts to think coolly and decide
patiently. Every error, however gross it may look,
should not, therefore, be attributed to improper
motive.”
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1592-1593 of 2015
(@ S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 9374-9375 of 2015)
Usmangani Adambhai Vahora 
V
State of Gujarat & Anr. 
Citation;(2016)3 SCC370
Dipak Misra, J.
Dated;JANUARY 8, 2016

Print Page

Whether litigant can seek transfer of case on the ground that Judge is convicting judge?

 The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he would not
get   a   fair   and   impartial   trial   is   on   the   basis   of   the   incident   which
occurred on 30.07.2015 referred to above. According to the petitioner,
he overheard the conversation between the complainant and his son
while  he  was standing   in  the  parking  area that  from  the  next date
onwards,   the   trial   would   commence   and   all   the   accused   would   be
convicted. After the said conversation was overheard by the petitioner
something   transpired   in   the   Court   wherein   in   the   absence   of   the
advocate on that day appearing for the petitioner, all of a sudden, the
date was fixed i.e. 05.08.2015. This incident led the petitioner to believe
that something is wrong and he would not get justice. It appears that
one of the grounds urged in the application filed by the petitioner under
Section   408   is   quite   curious.   It   says   that   the   Presiding   Officer   is   a
convicting Judge and he spares none. As such, the two grounds are quite
conflicting.   It   gives   an   impression   that   the   accused   is   afraid   of   the
Presiding   Officer   being   a   convicting   Judge   and   on   the   other   hand,
indirectly he is trying to convey that the complainant is quite confident
that he would be able to secure conviction at any cost. The petitioner

definitely is in dilemma. Whether to term his apprehension as reasonable
and   not   the   result   of   the   reaction   of   a   hypersensitive   mind   is   the
question. 
It is not in dispute that the Presiding Officer concerned has not
examined a single witness till this date. The witnesses examined so far
were all examined by the Predecessor in Office. The Presiding Officer
himself has also not indicated his disinclination to hear the matter. At
the same time, he has offered quite a stiff resistance to the plea of
transfer as the same is revealed from his remarks forwarded to the
Principal Sessions Judge. I am sure that the present Additional Sessions
Judge   would   have   acted   in   a   true   sense   of   a   Judicial   Officer.   But
nevertheless, to ensure that justice is not only done, but also seems to be
done   and   in   the   peculiar   facts   of   the   case,   I   feel   that   it   will   be
appropriate if the Principal Sessions Judge transfers the case to any
other Additional Sessions Judge in the same Sessions Division. I make it
abundantly clear that the transfer shall not be construed as casting any

aspersions on the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4884 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17138 of 2015
 In
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4884 of 2015



CHANDRKANTBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI SHARMA
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 08/10/2015

Print Page

Whether case can be transferred on ground that complainant has threat perception from accused?

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner is seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.39/10 from one
court to another court on the apprehension that there is threat to her and her
husband. Thus, the foundation for moving application under Section 408 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is threat perception. Mere perception is not

adequate or it cannot be a reason for transferring particular criminal case
from one court to the another court. The foundation must have some basis.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Dhammadina w/o Pankaj Shivbhagat

Vs
The State of Maharashtra.

19th December, 2014.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2015.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)1054

Print Page