When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

Post By 24law
March 8, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, has reaffirmed that mere inconvenience faced by an accused to appear for trial cannot be a ground for transfer of proceedings under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine, and such powers must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional circumstances.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of transfer petitions seeking to transfer a criminal trial from Coimbatore to Chandigarh in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act), 1881. The Court held: "An order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial."

Five Broad Grounds for Transfer of Trial

The Supreme Court outlined five specific situations where transfer of trial under Section 406 CrPC may be granted:

when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;
when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;
comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;
a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability to hold a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and
existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice.

Case Background

The case involved M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries, which filed a transfer petition seeking to shift Criminal Case No. 4016 of 2021, filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., from Chandigarh to Coimbatore. The petitioner argued that the entire transaction took place in Coimbatore, and therefore, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction over the case. The petition cited Section 142 of the N.I. Act, which states that a complaint under Section 138 should be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonored. The petitioner argued that the respondent bank filed the complaint in Chandigarh to harass them, despite the fact that all prior transactions occurred in Coimbatore.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding that: "The expression ‘expedient for the ends of justice’ in Section 406 CrPC does not imply that mere inconvenience to an accused can be a ground for transfer. There must be cogent reasons indicating that the trial in the current jurisdiction would lead to injustice." The Court relied on precedents, including Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana [(2020) 10 SCC 92], which held that lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be the sole ground for transfer of criminal cases. The Court also noted that the bank had presented the cheque in Chandigarh, thereby conferring jurisdiction under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. It emphasized that in the absence of any substantial miscarriage of justice or apprehension of bias, the transfer request could not be granted.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, holding that: "An accused cannot seek transfer of a criminal case merely on the ground that appearing in a particular court would be inconvenient. There must be compelling reasons that justify such a transfer, ensuring that justice is served without compromising the integrity of the trial."

Cause Title: M/S Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries Pranab Prakash V. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.