Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a criminal complaint filed by Sabu Trade Private Limited against Rajkumar Sabu under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem, alleging illegal use of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' for sago products, with offences under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The case was registered as CC No. 82/2018 on April 5, 2018, and cognizance was taken, with examination-in-chief of three prosecution witnesses completed by May 2019. Rajkumar Sabu filed a transfer petition under Section 406 CrPC seeking to move the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, citing overlapping issues with civil suits pending in the Delhi High Court, inconvenience due to distance and language barriers, and apprehension of bias in Salem. Shiv Narayan Sabu intervened, supporting the transfer. The respondents opposed, highlighting delay in filing the petition and substantial progress in the Salem proceedings, with personal appearance dispensed with by the Madras High Court. The court analyzed the grounds, noting that overlapping issues with civil suits did not justify transfer as the criminal case would proceed before a Magistrate, not the High Court, and substantial progress in Salem weighed against disruption. Convenience and language arguments were mitigated by the dispensation of personal appearance, and no credible evidence supported claims of impartiality. The court dismissed the transfer petition, allowing the criminal case to continue in Salem, while clarifying no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Grounds for Transfer - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406 - Petitioner sought transfer of criminal case from Salem to New Delhi citing overlapping issues with civil suits in Delhi High Court and language inconvenience - Court held overlapping issues alone insufficient as criminal case would proceed before a Magistrate, not the High Court, and substantial progress in Salem weighed against transfer (Paras 7-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Convenience and Language - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406 - Petitioner argued inconvenience due to distance and language barrier in Salem Court proceedings - Court noted personal appearance dispensed with by Madras High Court, reducing hardship, and found no compelling grounds to justify transfer on these bases (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Impartiality and Delay - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406 - Petitioner alleged respondents' influence in Salem and delay in filing transfer petition - Court found no credible materials to support impartiality claim and noted substantial progress in trial, making transfer inappropriate (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem should be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, allowing the criminal case to continue before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem, with no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute
Law Points
- Transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 CrPC requires compelling grounds
- overlapping issues with civil suits alone insufficient
- substantial progress in trial weighs against transfer
- convenience and language barriers considered but not decisive
