2021 (12) TMI 1006 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - Seeking transfer of the criminal proceedings of a complaint case - ground raised is of inconvenience - Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - The provision of Section 407 of the Code has provided power to the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. It is laid down therein that whenever it is made to appear to the High Court a that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or b that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or c that an order under the section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, then the Court may inter alia order that any particular case be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not raised any apprehension regarding any unfair and partial trial nor regarding any question of law of unusual difficulty which is likely to arise in the complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground that the petitioner has raised is with regard to the inconvenience he likely to face in attending the trial at Jorhat by travelling from his village of residence at Tingkhong, which is situated at a distance of approx. 160 KMs to Jorhat - In the case in hand, the petitioner has not pleaded any physical disability to travel the distance of approx. 160 KMs from his place of residence to Jorhat i.e. the place of trial. The petitioner has claimed himself to be as an agriculturist. The petitioner has declared his age as 38 years. The learned counsel for the parties at the Bar has submitted that the transportation facility from Dibrugarh to Jorhat is good. An able bodied person can complete to and fro journey from Dibrugarh to Jorhat and vice versa within the day. There are different modes of public transport like bus, rail, light motor vehicles, etc. are available at small intervals. The ground of inconvenience that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner does not deserve acceptance - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer of criminal proceedings from one court to another based on convenience of the accused.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the transfer of criminal proceedings from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing inconvenience due to residing in a remote area 160 KMs away from Jorhat. The respondent, HDFC Bank, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for defaulting on a loan repayment, leading to the issuance of a cheque that bounced due to a "dormant account" status. The petitioner claimed to have paid the loan amount in full in 2017 but faced issues with the bank regarding clearance and arbitration proceedings. The respondent argued that the jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat was valid as the cheque was presented there.

The High Court examined the grounds for transferring a case under Section 407 of the Code, emphasizing the need for a fair trial, resolution of legal complexities, and general convenience. The petitioner's sole contention was the inconvenience of traveling to Jorhat for trial due to residing in a remote location. The court referenced a Supreme Court case stating that inconvenience in traveling for court proceedings is not a sufficient reason for transferring a case, as jurisdiction is determined by the law. The court noted that the petitioner did not claim any physical disability hindering travel and highlighted the availability of various modes of transportation between Dibrugarh and Jorhat, making the journey feasible for an able-bodied person within a day. The distance from the petitioner's residence to Dibrugarh was mentioned to be approximately 25 KMs.

Ultimately, the court found the petitioner's inconvenience argument insufficient for transferring the case and dismissed the petition for transfer of the criminal proceedings from Jorhat to Dibrugarh. The judgment concluded that the inconvenience cited by the petitioner did not warrant a transfer, and no costs were imposed in the matter.