SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

The transfer petition was dismissed because the offences as alleged in the FIR arose in New Delhi and under Section 177 Cr.P.C. the inquiry and trial should ordinarily be in the jurisdiction where the offence was committed; most prosecution witnesses, including 12 official witnesses, are located in Delhi and transfer to Allahabad would hinder their official duties; no exceptional circumstances justified transfer.

Parties
Petitioners: Swaati Nirkhi & Ors.; Respondents: State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Transfer Petition (criminal) Under Section 406 Cr.p.c. / De Novo Hearing Before the Supreme Court After Review of Ex Parte Order; Petition Disposed by Judgment
Outcome
Transfer Petition dismissed; proceedings transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Trial, Place of Inquiry and Trial, Jurisdiction Under Section 177 Cr.p.c., Convenience of Witnesses, Apprehension of Bias
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Transfer of Trial Place of Inquiry and Trial Jurisdiction Under Section 177 Cr.p.c. Convenience of Witnesses Apprehension of Bias

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swaati Nirkhi & Ors.

Petitioners

State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Transfer Petition (criminal) Under Section 406 Cr.p.c. / De Novo Hearing Before the Supreme Court After Review of Ex Parte Order; Petition Disposed by Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of the criminal case pending in Delhi should be transferred to Allahabad (Prayagraj)
  2. 2 Whether Section 177 Cr.P.C. requires inquiry and trial to be held where the offence was committed (place of cause of action)
  3. 3 Whether inconvenience to official witnesses and public interest justify transfer despite convenience claimed by accused

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer petition was dismissed because the offences as alleged in the FIR arose in New Delhi and under Section 177 Cr.P.C. the inquiry and trial should ordinarily be in the jurisdiction where the offence was committed; most prosecution witnesses, including 12 official witnesses, are located in Delhi and transfer to Allahabad would hinder their official duties; no exceptional circumstances justified transfer.

Court Disposition

Transfer Petition dismissed; proceedings transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi.

Orders

  • Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 262 of 2018 dismissed.
  • Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 39 of 2016 transferred back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi.