Mere inconvenience no ground to transfer NIA case: Raj HC dismisses elderly accused’s plea

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to transfer a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint from one Magistracy to another within the State, holding that mere inconvenience to an elderly accused — without a serious medical condition that prevents travel — is not a valid ground for the exercise of the transfer power under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed the petition filed by a 62-year-old accused who had sought transfer of the cheque-bounce complaint pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, to the Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh, SriGanganagar, a distance of about 150 kilometres.

Recording the conclusion, the bench held:

“Merely, on the ground that inconvenience would be caused to the accused-petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case cannot be transferred. The grounds raised in the petition are not sustainable in law. No ground for transfer is made out. The criminal transfer petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.”

The transfer petition arose out of Criminal Original Case No. 197/2020, titled Munshiram v. Kesuram, filed by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate at Rawatsar. The petitioner-accused, Kesuram, resident of Chak 3 N.M. Dhaba, Tehsil Anupgarh, District SriGanganagar, sought transfer of the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate at Anupgarh, in his home tehsil.

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia submitted that the petitioner was 62 years of age and that travelling about 150 kilometres each way to attend successive dates of hearing at Rawatsar caused him great inconvenience. The State was represented by Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Bhagirath Solanki appeared for the complainant.

Examining the record, the Court noted that nothing had been produced denoting any kind of serious ailment that would prevent the petitioner from attending hearings at Rawatsar. It further observed that, after the filing of the complaint by the second respondent at Rawatsar under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner had himself lodged an FIR at Anupgarh — in which a negative final report had been submitted by the police.

The Court treated this sequence as material to its discretion. The pendency of a complaint filed by the opposite party at one location, met with a counter-FIR by the accused at his own preferred location followed by a negative final report, weighed against any inference that the choice of forum needed to be revisited on grounds of accessibility alone.

The order is a reminder that the power of a High Court to transfer a criminal case from one Magistracy or Sessions Court to another within the State under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 451 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is exercised on grounds such as a reasonable apprehension that justice cannot otherwise be done, serious ill-health, or threat to the security of the parties — and not on the ordinary inconvenience of travel that is incident to litigation itself.

The criminal transfer petition was dismissed. The accompanying stay application also stood dismissed.

Title: Kesuram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 25/2024

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Bhagirath Solanki for the second respondent