LexRAJESH TALWAR versus C.B.I. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 841 RAJESH TALWAR v. C.B.I. & ORS. (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 45 of 2012 etc.) MARCH 02, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.) A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 406 - Transfer of proceedings under - Petitioners seeking transfer of C proceedings from the courl of the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P., to a courl of competent jurisdiction in Delhi/New Delhi - Grounds of inconvenience of the petitioner to travel long distance to parlicipate in the courl proceedings; threatened personal security on account of o physical assault on the petitioner at the hands of psychopath, resulting in grievous injuries to him as a/so other grounds raised - Held: Inconvenience of traveling a distance of merely 52 Kms. from Delhi to Ghaziabad would not be such as can be the basis for seeking transfer - Jurisdiction of a courl to E conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure - Complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States to reach the jurisdictional courl - Witnesses a/so travel in order to depose before the courl - If the plea of inconvenience is accepted, the F provisions earmarking the courls having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless - As regards threatened personal security, it is a/so not possible to accept that the physical assault on the petitioner at the hands of a psychopath can be a valid basis for transfer of the present proceedings from Ghaziabad to Delhi/New Delhi - In view of G the measures adopted by the Sessions Judge, the CBI and the State Administration towards security arrangements in the courl-premises generally, and a/so, the special arrangements 841 H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A which the respondents have undertaken to make, with particular reference to the petitioners, justice would be dispensed to the petitioners in an atmosphere shorn of any fear or favour - Order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. that during the proceedings B no person shall be allowed to enter in the court room except for the parties to the case and their respective counsel to be enforced in letter and in spirit - In case of breach, the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. to take appropriate steps including coercive measures if necessary, to enforce c the same - The majesty of law must be maintained at all costs - Based on certain insinuations against the presiding officer of the trial court, the petitioners asserted that they were not likely to get justice, as the concerned court was proceeding in the matter with a pre-determined mmd - Said ground was 0 not pressed during the course of hearing - Even raising such a ground in the pleadings can certainly be termed as most irresponsible - Insinuations can also be stated to have been aimed even at the High Court as the said order was also challenged before the High Court but it failed - Petitioners are E cautioned from making any irresponsible insinuations with reference to court-proceedings - Proper course would be, to assail before a superior court, any order which may not be to the satisfaction of the petitioners, in accordance with law - The further ground for transfer of case that they were prevented from discharging their responsibility appropriately, are vague, F and as such, cannot be the basis of a justifiable claim for transfer of proceedings, uls. 406 - Neither the application nor the affidavit disclose that the petitioner's counsel were prevented from as also the identity of those responsible - It cannot be concluded that the petitioners would be deprived G of a free and fair trial at Ghaziabad - There is no we/1- substantiated apprehension that justice would not be dispensed to the petitioners impartially, objectively and without any bias - The basis on which transfer of proceedings was sought, being just speculative and unjustified H RAJESH TALWAR v. C.B.I. & ORS. 843 apprehensions based inter alia on vague and non-specific A allegations stands dismissed - Transfer petition. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158; Ravir Godbole vs. State of M.P. (2006) 9 SCC 786; Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II}, Tamil Nadu B v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 8 SCC 771: 2005 (4 ) Suppl. SCR 556; Central Bureau of Investigation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.