Latest News
Back
Document:
Lack of jurisdiction cannot decide transfer of criminal cases, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that it cannot order the transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before the evidence is marshalled while dismissing an appeal seeking transfer of criminal cases.
Section 406(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973(1) state that Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian passed this Judgment on a petition filed by Kaushik Chatterjee, seeking transfer of three criminal cases from the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana, to any competent court in New Delhi.
The petitioner was appointed on August 4, 2016, as the Group Chief Risk Officer Executive Director of a nonbanking finance company. Upon his appointment, the petitioner joined the Delhi office of the second respondent, the company, on the same day and was transferred to Mumbai on August 10, 2017. The petitioner resigned in July 2018.
Three complaints were lodged by the second respondent (the company) with the Station House Officer Civil Lines, Gurugram, under Sections 406, 408, 420, 120B, and 34 of the IPC. These were in respect to three loans sanctioned by the company while the petitioner was in service.
The petitioner has approached the apex court for the transfer of these three criminal cases cited above on the ground that no cause of action arose in Gurugram. He had prayed that the cases should be transferred to Delhi.
While considering the submission put forward by Senior Counsel Vikas Singh on behalf of the petitioner, the court observed: “While the question of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases revolves mainly around or (i) the residence of the defendant, etc., according to as the case may be, the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases revolve around. ensues or (iii) place where the accused was found or (iv) place where the victim was found or, according as the case may be. While the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by (i) the offense and/or (ii) the offender.”
Regarding the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials, the court considered the principles laid down in Sections 177 to 184 of Cr.P.C.
“As seen from the pleadings, the type of issue, raised in the cases on hand, is one of territorial jurisdiction, at least as of now. It depends upon facts to be established by evidence. It may relate either to the place of commission of the offense or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of the Code. Due to this Court cannot order transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before the evidence is marshalled,” observed the apex court.
The Court therefore in light of the above observation dismissed the transfer petitions.
Document:
