2026 Supreme(All) 577

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Jyoti Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others – Respondent
Transfer Application (Criminal) No. - 22 of 2026
Decided On : 19-05-2026

The transfer of a criminal case is a discretionary power that may be denied where a party demonstrates bad faith, persistent abuse of legal process through malicious personal allegations, and fails to establish that the balance of convenience—considering all parties and witnesses—necessitates moving the trial.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 407 - Transfer of criminal proceedings - Discretionary jurisdiction - Application for transfer of criminal case from one district to another by complainant - Conduct of parties - Relevance of - Court holds that where a petitioner persistently makes false and malicious allegations against the accused to malign familial relations and fails to withdraw such imputations despite judicial opportunity, such conduct constitutes an abuse of the court's process and disentitles the petitioner from seeking discretionary relief. (Paras 16, 17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 407 - Transfer of criminal case - Grounds for - Convenience of parties - Scope - Convenience of parties does not refer solely to the personal convenience of the petitioner; it must account for the prosecution, the accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of justice - In cases where a party has voluntarily instituted a case at a specific location, the request for transfer based primarily on personal convenience, particularly when the ongoing proceeding is state-led and does not mandate the physical presence of the complainant at every hearing, is not sustainable. (Paras 21-23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the transfer of a criminal case from one district to another, citing personal inconvenience in attending proceedings. The application contained disparaging allegations against the family members of the accused, labeling a relative as a kept individual. Despite objections regarding the veracity of these claims and the court providing an opportunity to withdraw such statements, the petitioner persisted in maintaining these allegations throughout the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner acted in bad faith by leveling false, defamatory, and malicious accusations against family members to malign them. This behavioral conduct was deemed an abuse of the court's process. Additionally, the court noted that since the state is the prosecutor in the matter, the physical presence of the petitioner is not strictly required at every hearing stage, thus failing to establish a reasonable ground for transferring the case merely for personal comfort.

Issues: The main issues were whether a request for the transfer of a criminal case can be granted solely based on the personal convenience of a complainant and whether the conduct of a party in making malicious and unsubstantiated allegations influences the court’s decision to exercise its discretionary transfer jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to transfer is discretionary and is not to be exercised in favor of a party who engages in the abuse of process, such as making highly derogatory and false assertions against opposing parties. Courts must balance the convenience of all participants, and since a complainant is not required to attend every date in a state-led criminal case, the balance of convenience does not shift in favor of transferring the trial out of the established jurisdiction.

Result: Transfer application dismissed with costs imposed upon the petitioner to be paid to the respondent.