Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Sharma, an investigative journalist, filed transfer petitions under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking transfer of three criminal cases pending in Dehradun courts to courts in Delhi or outside Uttarakhand. The petitioner alleged that due to his sting operations against the Chief Minister and associates of the ruling dispensation in Uttarakhand, he was being targeted for malicious prosecution and apprehended threat to his life. The State of Uttarakhand opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice, that charge sheets had been filed, and that witnesses were residents of Uttarakhand. The complainant in FIR No.100/2018 alleged that the petitioner used journalism as a cover for property grabbing and blackmail. The Supreme Court examined the list of 29 cases pending against the petitioner across multiple states, noting that 17 were in Uttarakhand, but the State had withdrawn prosecution in many cases. The Court observed that FIR No.16/2007 dated 2007 predated the current ruling dispensation and related to a property dispute, while FIR No.128/2018 concerned land grabbing. Only FIR No.100/2018 was linked to journalistic activity, alleging misuse of sting operations for extortion. The Court found that the petitioner's apprehension of malicious prosecution was based on steps taken by the public prosecutor in 2018, but since charge sheets were filed and the cases were at trial stage, the role of the State was limited to presenting evidence before the trial court, which is capable of fair adjudication. Citing Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, the Court held that transfer requires substantial and compelling circumstances, not mere hypersensitivity or unsubstantiated fear. The Court dismissed the transfer petitions, directing the trial courts to proceed expeditiously and complete the trial within one year.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Section 406 CrPC - Apprehension of Malicious Prosecution - Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought transfer of three criminal cases from Uttarakhand courts alleging vindictive prosecution by State due to his sting operations against ruling dispensation - Court held that mere apprehension, without substantial and compelling circumstances, is insufficient for transfer; charge sheets already filed and trial courts are competent to evaluate evidence fairly (Paras 1-14). B) Criminal Procedure - Role of Public Prosecutor - Fair Trial - Public prosecutor has duty to ensure fair play and rights of accused, but steps taken in 2018 to arrest petitioner do not justify transfer as case is now at trial stage - Courts are capable of deciding cases on merits (Paras 12-13). C) Criminal Procedure - Transfer on Grounds of Prejudice - Section 406 CrPC - Petitioner failed to demonstrate how trial would be prejudiced; many cases pending across states and petitioner has filed PILs in Uttarakhand High Court, indicating no impediment - Transfer not warranted (Paras 2-3, 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal cases pending against the petitioner in Uttarakhand courts should be transferred to courts outside the State on grounds of apprehension of malicious prosecution and threat to life.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petitions, holding that the petitioner failed to establish substantial and compelling circumstances for transfer. The Court directed the trial courts to proceed with the trials expeditiously and complete them within one year.
Law Points
- Transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 CrPC requires substantial
- compelling
- and imperilling circumstances
- mere apprehension of malicious prosecution not sufficient when charge sheet filed and trial court can evaluate evidence
- public prosecutor's duty includes ensuring fair play and rights of accused
- courts capable of deciding cases on merits.
