Supreme Court Dismisses Transfer Petition in Criminal Cases Due to Lack of Justification. Transfer of cases denied as no reasonable apprehension of injustice was established by the petitioners.

  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petition was filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the transfer of multiple criminal cases involving Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. from the Punjab & Haryana High Court to the Delhi High Court. The company, engaged in manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines, had numerous disputes with its Carrying and Forwarding Agents, leading to various FIRs and complaints filed against each other. The petitioner argued that all cases arose from a single transaction and that consolidating them would serve the interest of justice. The respondents contended that the petitioners did not show a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done in the current jurisdiction. The court noted that while it has the power to transfer cases, the convenience of all parties, including witnesses, must be considered. It found no reasonable basis for the petitioners' fears and dismissed the transfer petition, suggesting that local judges consider consolidating the cases for efficiency. The decision emphasized the impartiality of the courts in Punjab and Haryana and the need for fair treatment of all parties involved.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Reasonable Apprehension of Injustice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406 - The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be served in the current jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for convenience of all parties involved. The court dismissed the transfer petition but requested local judges to consider consolidating cases for efficiency (Paras 16-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the transfer of multiple criminal cases from Punjab to Delhi High Court was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The transfer petition was dismissed, with the court suggesting local judges consider consolidating cases for efficiency.

Law Points

  • Transfer of criminal cases
  • Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
  • convenience of parties
  • apprehension of injustice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (08) 56

Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.377 of 2006

2009-08-04

S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph

Sunil Gupta, Bhatt

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.

State of Punjab & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Transfer petition for multiple criminal cases.

Remedy Sought

Transfer of cases to Delhi High Court.

Filing Reason

Allegations of unfair treatment and multiple FIRs arising from a single transaction.

Issues

Justification for transfer of criminal cases Reasonable apprehension of injustice

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for consolidation of cases for justice Respondents contended no reasonable apprehension was shown

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that the convenience of all parties and the absence of reasonable apprehension of injustice are critical in deciding transfer petitions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment Excerpts

The present petition is filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of multiple cases. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be served in the current jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The petition was filed seeking transfer of multiple FIRs and complaints against the petitioner from Punjab to Delhi, with various cases pending in different courts.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 406
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Criminal Appeals Against Conviction for Murder and Arms Act Violations — Upholds Conviction of Two Accused.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Order in NDPS Act Case Due to Overlooked Evidence and Seriousness of Charges. High Court's Bail Grant Found Unsustainable as Key Factors Were Ignored.