SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Kanaklata – Appellant
Versus
State of (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.881 of 2014)
Decided On : 4-02-2015
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 407 – Trial court discharging accused from offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Observations strong worded – Shows pre-conceived notion of the Presiding Officer – Transfer petition deserves to be allowed. (Para 5)
Per R. Banumathi, J. (Dissenting)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 407 – In earlier round complainant not expressing any apprehension of bias, nor making request for transfer – Order of remand by High Court to the same trial court accepted by complainant – Present transfer petition not maintainable – Transfer of a case cannot be permitted merely because the Sessions Judge made certain observations while allowing the discharge petition – Case instituted in 2009, Transfer petition made in 2013 – Complainant adopting dilatory tactics. (Para 4, 5, 6, 8)
1994 (Supp. 1) SCC 540 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Sessions Case No.1006 of 2009 arises out of FIR No.156/2008 registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/354 of the IPC and Sections 3(i) (X) (XI) (XV) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, before whom the matter is currently pending, appears to have heard the parties on the question of framing of charges and by an order dated 22nd March, 2010 discharged the accused persons for the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The complainant questioned the discharge order passed by the trial Court before the High Court in a revision petition which was allowed by the High Court with a direction to the trial Court to pass a fresh order on the subject after hearing both the parties.
At this stage, the complainant expressed an apprehension about the fairness of the approach which the trial Court in view of the findings recorded in the order of discharge earlier passed by her.
The complainant (appellant herein) filed T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Rohini which was dismissed.
The complainant filed T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013 before the High Court seeking transfer of the case to any other Court competent to try the same outside Rohini District. That application has been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court (majority view):
Transfer petition deserves to be allowed.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 29th August, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court has dismissed T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013 filed by the appellant seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.1006 of 2009 from the Court where it is presently pending to any other Sessions Court at Rohini or Tis Hazari.
3. Sessions Case No.1006 of 2009 arises out of FIR No.156/2008 registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/354 of the IPC and Sections 3(i) (X) (XI) (XV) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, before whom the matter is currently pending, appears to have heard the parties on the question of framing of charges and by an order dated 22nd March, 2010 discharged the accused persons for the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The case was in that view made over to the illaqa Magistrate for consideration whether charges under the Indian Penal Code need to be framed in the case.
4. The complainant questioned the discharge order passed by the trial Court before the High Court in a revision petition which was allowed by the High Court by its order dated 10th December, 2012 with a direction to the trial Court to pass a fresh order on the subject after hearing both the parties. It was at this stage, that the complainant expressed an apprehension about the fairness of the approach which the trial Court may adopt in view of the findings recorded in the order of discharge earlier passed by her. The complainant (appellant herein) expressed these fears first in T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013 filed before the Sessions Judge, Rohini which was dismissed by the said court by order dated 22nd May, 2013 holding that since no other officer in North West District in Delhi has been notified for trial of cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 the prayer for transfer in essence was tantamount to asking for a transfer to another district which could be allowed only by the High Court. It was in the above backdrop that the complainant filed T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013 before the High Court seeking transfer of the case to any other Court competent to try the same outside Rohini District. That application, as noticed above, has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in the present appeal primarily on the ground that the order passed by the High Court has made it sufficiently clear that the observations made in the order passed by the trial Court shall not influence any fresh order which the said Court may pass pursuant to the remand made by the High Court. The High Court has also observed that the complainant (appellant herein) had while filing Crl. R.P. No.242 of 2010 against the discharge order expressed no apprehension nor sought transfer of the case from the Court where it is pending to any other Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It is true that the trial Court had while discharging the accused persons under the Special Act mentioned above, made certain observations about the alleged misuse of the provisions of the said Act by unscrupulous elements and also certain suggestions for remedying that situation. It is also true that the trial Court had come to the conclusion that there is no real basis for it to frame any charge against the accused persons under the said Act. But it is equally true that while setting aside that order and directing a fresh order on the question of charge, the High Court has clearly mentioned that the trial Court shall remain uninfluenced by the observation made in its earlier order. That observation is, in the opinion of the High Court, a sufficient safeguard against any possible prejudice to the complainant-appellant herein making transfer of the case from
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.