2012 (3) TMI 680 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of criminal proceedings based on convenience.
2. Transfer of criminal proceedings based on personal security.
3. Allegations of bias against the presiding officer.
4. Vague allegations regarding interference in court proceedings.

Summary:

1. Convenience:
The Petitioners sought transfer of proceedings u/s 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad, U.P., to a court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi/New Delhi on grounds of convenience. They argued that residing in the same premises where the murder occurred was impossible, necessitating their move to New Delhi, making it more convenient to face trial there. They also highlighted the distance and travel time between Noida, Ghaziabad, and New Delhi, and the inconvenience to witnesses and CBI officials based in Delhi. The Court rejected this plea, emphasizing that inconvenience cannot justify the transfer of criminal proceedings. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not by convenience or distance.

2. Personal Security:
The Petitioners contended that their personal security was at risk due to a vicious attack on Dr. Rajesh Talwar within the court premises at Ghaziabad. They cited a previous incident where Dr. Rajesh Talwar was attacked with a cleaver knife, causing grievous injuries. The Court noted that the attack was by a psychologically disturbed individual and not aimed at disrupting court proceedings. The Court also took note of the enhanced security measures implemented by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and assurances from the CBI and State Administration regarding the Petitioners' safety. The Court found no merit in the plea for transfer based on personal security.

3. Allegations of Bias:
The Petitioners alleged that they were unlikely to get justice as the Ghaziabad court was proceeding with a pre-determined mind. This assertion was based on the rejection of their application for exemption from personal appearance and the issuance of bailable warrants against them. The Court found these allegations baseless and warned the Petitioners against making irresponsible insinuations. The Court emphasized that such allegations, especially when the High Court had rejected their challenge, were contemptuous.

4. Vague Allegations:
The Petitioners' counsel submitted an affidavit alleging interference by unrelated advocates during court proceedings. The Court found these allegations vague and lacking specific details, such as the identity of those responsible. The Court held that such vague allegations could not justify the transfer of proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Transfer Petitions, concluding that the Petitioners would receive a fair trial at Ghaziabad. The Court emphasized that the grounds for transfer were speculative and based on unjustified apprehensions. The Court reiterated that the order dated 25.1.2011 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, ensuring the Petitioners' safety, should be enforced in letter and spirit. The Court cautioned the Petitioners against making irresponsible insinuations regarding court proceedings.