HARITA SUNIL PARAB versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
HARITA SUNIL PARAB
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
(Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 254-255 of 2017)
MARCH 28, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R. F. NARIMAN AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Transfer Petitions – Petitioner, a resident of Mumbai and a
practicing Advocate before Mumbai High Court, seeks transfer of
two FIRs registered by her against respondents nos. 2 to 4 in Delhi
and Ghaziabad to Mumbai – Plea of petitioner that she fears that
investigation may not be done fairly as she has been receiving threats
from accused persons – Held: Investigation is complete in both the
FIRs which are the subject matter of transfer – Charge sheet in one
of the FIR reveals that of the 40 witnesses, petitioner alone is from
Mumbai, two are from Ghaziabad and one is from NOIDA – Charge
sheet of the other FIR is not on record but a presumption can be
drawn that the position would be similar in that case also –
Apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial
has to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures
and surmises – If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to
the investigation, the remedy lies in filing an appropriate application
under Cr.P.C, before the court concerned – At this stage, the
apprehensions voiced by petitioner of possible harm to her at Delhi
is too nebulous a ground for transfer – As far as inconvenience is
concerned, it is her own pleadings, that she has been travelling
from Mumbai to Delhi since long for professional reasons – Cases
in question are not required to be transferred to Mumbai – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 354, 354A, 376, 379, 420, 506 and 509 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Railways Act – ss.145(B), 146,
137.
Transfer Petitions
– Relevant considerations for
– Discussed.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 732
732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
Rejecting the transfer petitions, the Court
HELD: TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) Nos. 254-255 OF
2017
1.1 The records reveal that investigation has been
completed in both the present FIRs which are the subject matter
of transfer, and separate charge sheets have been filed before
the court of competent jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any
grievance with regard to the investigation, the remedy lies in
filing an appropriate application under the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the court concerned, and any such application,
if filed, has to be considered on its own merits by the concerned
court in accordance with law. Likewise, if the petitioner faces or
is apprehensive for her safety in pursuing her complaints at Delhi,
sufficient remedies are available to her under the law. Any such
application, if filed, before the concerned court or the police, has
to be dealt with on its own merits in accordance with law.
[Paras 4, 5] [736-B-D]
1.2 The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial
enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary,
based upon conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard and
fast rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which
will always have to be decided on the facts of each case.
Convenience of a party may be one of the relevant considerations
but cannot override all other considerations such as the availability
of witnesses exclusively at the original place, making it virtually
impossible to continue with the trial at the place of transfer, and
progress of which would naturally be impeded for that reason at
the transferred place of trial. The convenience of the parties does
not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who approaches
the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience
for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the
prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest
of the society. The charge sheet in one of the FIR reveals that of
the 40 witnesses, the petitioner alone is from Mumbai, two are
from Ghaziabad, and one is from NOIDA. The charge sheet is of
the other FIR is not on record. A reasonable presumption can be
drawn that the position would be similar in the same also. Early
HARITA SUNIL PARAB v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
conclusion of the trial becomes much more difficult involving more
expenses for the prosecution by it having to bear travelling
expenses of official and non-official witnesses and all of which
ultimately causes the trial to linger on for years. At this stage,
the apprehensions voiced by the petitioner of pos

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.