A transfer of cases under Section 406, Cr.P.C. may be allowed when there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence, justice may not be done. A mere convenience or inconvenience of parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for a transfer.
Some broad factors which could be kept in mind are, i) a burden to be borne by State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of official and non-official witnesses; ii) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability in holding a fair and impartial trial; iii) existence of some material from which it can be inferred, some persons, so hostile, are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with course of justice [Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India,(2011) 1 SCC 307].
The argument canvassed is, although Court in Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to try under Section 138, N.I. Act, Court in Delhi also has territorial jurisdiction to try. The proceedings deserve to be transferred to Court in Delhi to take care of two situations, i) language barrier and ii) convenience.
For purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings under Section 406, Cr.P.C., it must fall within ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. A mere inconvenience or hardship in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. It is always open to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request Court to be permitted to join proceedings online.
– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M/s. Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 608 of 2024].
