Gujarat High Court
Vijay Chandraprakash Shukla vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO.
10338 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
=================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
3 NO
the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of
4 law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
=================================================
VIJAY CHANDRAPRAKASH SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Page 1 of 9
Downloaded on : Thu Feb 01 20:40:00 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Date : 30/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No. 1 - State and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 waive
service. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard finally today.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(CrPC) seeking transfer of Criminal Case No. 900420 of 2007 on the
file of 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to
the Court of Chief / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Vadodara, where, Criminal Case No. 35291 of 2008 is pending in
the Court of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and Criminal Case No. 26322 of
2019, is pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Vadodara.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State and
the learned counsel for the second respondent No. 2.
4. Facts germane to dispose of this petition may briefly stated as
follow:
4.1 The petitioner has filed the private complaint against the
second respondent and another for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) on the file of 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The said case is now pending for recording
the evidence before framing of charge. On the report lodged by the
second respondent against the petitioner before the police, two
crimes were registered in Vadodara Police Station. Eventually, after
investigation, the police have filed charge-sheets in the said cases.
The said two cases against the petitioner are now pending trial on the
file of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 35219 of 2008
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
and on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vadodara in Criminal
Case No. 26322 of 2019. The said cases against the petitioner are
pending for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471, 472, and 120-B of the IPC.
4.2 While the aforesaid cases in the Court at Ahmedabad and in
the Court at Vadodara are pending, the present petition has been
filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in Criminal Case No.
900420 of 2007 on the file of 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which is instituted on a private complaint,
for transfer of the said case to the Court at Vadodara and to try the
said case with aforesaid two cases pending in the Court at Vadodara.
4.3 The petitioner sought transfer of his complaint from the Court
of Ahmedabad to the Court of Vadodara on the ground that the
second respondent and other person, who are accused in his
complaint in the Court at Ahmedabad, are not attending the Court
and also on the ground that the dispute relating to the complaint filed
by him and the dispute relating the cases registered against him in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Vadodara Court are related to the same transactions and the facts and
as such, it is essential to try all these cases before one Court. Thus,
principally, on the aforesaid two grounds, the petitioner sought
transfer of his complaint from the Court of Ahmedabad to the Court
of Vadodara.
5. The petition is strongly opposed by the second respondent. It
is contended that the petitioner cannot chose forum of the Court. It
is stated that as the alleged offence took place within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Ahmedabad, as per the allegations set out in the
complaint filed by the petitioner, it is only the Court of Ahmedabad
which is competent to try the said case and the same cannot be
transferred to the Courts of Vadodara. He would also contend that
mere fact that the accused are not attending the Court in the
complaint case filed by the petitioner, even if true, cannot be a valid
ground for transfer of the case from one Court to the another
changing its jurisdiction. He would then contend that the facts of the
case in the complaint filed by the petitioner and the facts of the cases
pending against him in Vadodara Court are different and they do not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
pertain to the same offence. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
second respondent prays for dismissal of the petition.
5.1 In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Rajkumar
Sabu v. Sabu Trade Private Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 378,
wherein, it is held that, convenience of the party in a criminal trial
cannot be a valid ground for transfer of case from one Court to
another beyond the jurisdiction of the competent Court.
6. As regards the first ground on which the petitioner sought
transfer of his case from the Court of Ahmedabad to the Courts of
Vadodara is concerned, this Court has no hesitation to straightway
hold that it is not a valid ground under law to order for transfer of a
criminal case from the Court of competent jurisdiction to the another
Court in a neighbouring district. The mere fact that the accused are
not attending the Court in a case that was filed against them in the
Court of Ahmedabad, is not a valid legal ground to order for transfer
of the said case from the Court of Ahmedabad to the Court of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Vadodara. Three grounds are enumerated in Section 407 of the CrPC
where the High Court is empowered to transfer a criminal case from
the jurisdictional one Court to the jurisdictional another Court. They
are: i) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or ii) that some question of law
of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or iii) that an order under this
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. It is only on these three grounds that a case can
be ordered to be transferred from the jurisdictional one Court to the
jurisdictional another Court. None of the three grounds is existing in
the present case as prayed by the petitioner to order for transfer of
his case from the Court of Ahmedabad to the Court of Vadodara.
The fact that the accused are not attending the Court and not
appearing in the Court, is not made a ground under Section 407 of
the CrPC to order for transfer of the case to the another Court. If
that be the grievance of the petitioner - complainant, he has to make
a representation or submission before the trial Court to insist for
presence of the accused to proceed with the trial of the case but
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
undoubtedly, it cannot be a ground for transfer of case from one
Court to the another Court.
6.1 As regards the second ground is concerned, as the present
complaint case was filed by the petitioner regarding the incident said
to have taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court at
Ahmedabad and as two criminal cases that are pending against him
in the Court of Vadodara, are instituted relating to the acts that took
place allegedly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Vadodara, the
trial Court of the said three cases are to be conducted in the
respective Courts which have jurisdiction to try the said cases. The
case of the petitioner cannot be transferred as per his convenience.
The second respondent and the other accused in the case that was
instituted by him in the Court at Ahmedabad, are also the residents
of Ahmedabad. They cannot be made to roam around the Courts at
Vadodara on each and every adjournment of the case. The said
hardship shall also be taken into consideration while considering the
prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10338/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
6.2 Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court absolutely see no
valid legal ground to order for transfer of the Criminal Case No.
900420 of 2007 now pending on the file of 9 th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to the Courts of Vadodara as
prayed for. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and it is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of
his case in the trial Court.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
hiren
/12
