2021 Supreme(SC) 264

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
RAJKUMAR SABU – Appellant
VERSUS
M/S SABU TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED - RESPONDENT
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 17 OF 2021
Decided on : 07-05-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Transfer of criminal case – Jurisdiction under Section 406 of 1973 Code cannot be exercised on mere apprehension of one of parties that justice would not be done in a given case.
(2) Convenience of one of parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application. Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be expedient for ends of justice.
(3) If a Court hearing a case possesses jurisdiction to proceed with same, solely based on fact that one of parties to that case is unable to follow language of that Court would not warrant exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 406 of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 406 – Transfer of criminal case – Several proceedings have been instituted over question of ownership of trade mark SACHAMOTI and these litigations bear features of a family dispute – Businesses of petitioner and respondent-company also seems to have had association or connection in past – Respondents had filed a suit for declaration and injunction to prevent use of said trade mark in Court of District Judge, Salem – Petitioner wants criminal case pending in Salem Court to be transferred to Patiala House Court, New Delhi – Suits being heard by Delhi High Court would have points which could overlap with those involved in criminal case pending in Salem Court – But that very fact, by itself, would not justify transfer of said case – Substantial progress has been made in complaint before Salem Court – So far as subject-criminal case is concerned, ground of overlapping points in any event cannot justify petitioner’s case for transfer as even if petition is allowed, criminal case shall have to proceed in Court of Judicial Magistrate and not in High Court where civil suits are being heard – Two different judicial Fora would be hearing civil cases and criminal case – Barring claims being made by petitioner of respondents being influential person in Salem, no material has been produced to demonstrate that such perceived influence can impair a neutral trial – Petitioner’s case of possible tainted trial is unfounded – Court cannot come to a conclusion that justice would be in peril if case continues in Salem Court – Ordinarily, if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case, case ought to proceed in that Court only – Jurisdiction under Section 406 of 1973 Code cannot be exercised on mere apprehension of one of parties that justice would not be done in a given case. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 406 – Transfer of criminal case – Petitioner’s plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience – Convenience of one of parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application – Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be expedient for ends of justice – This expression entails factors beyond mere convenience of parties or one of them in conducting a case before a Court having jurisdiction to hear the case – Parties are related and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions – While instituting civil suits, both parties had chosen Fora, some of which were away from their primary places of business or main places of business of defendants – If a Court hearing a case possesses jurisdiction to proceed with same, solely based on fact that one of parties to that case is unable to follow language of that Court would not warrant exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 406 of 1973 Code – Aid of translator is available in Salem Court which could overcome this difficulty – If required, petitioner may take aid of interpreter also, as may be available – Transfer Petition dismissed. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Present proceeding arises out of a case instituted by the respondents, Sabu Trade Private Limited invoking jurisdiction of Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem (Salem Court) under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By filing present application under Section 406 of the 1973 Code, petitioner wants the case to be transferred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The allegation of the respondents in the said case is over use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI in respect of sago or sabudana by Rajkumar Sabu (Petitioner). According to the respondents, such use is illegal and unauthorised. Respondents claim proprietary right over said trade mark.

Findings of Court:

Records reveal that aid of translator is available in the Salem Court, which could overcome this difficulty. If required, the petitioner may take the aid of interpreter also, as may be available.

Result : Transfer Petition dismissed.