M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd

“Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner concern is engaged in the business of producing coconut oil, selling coconut oil and its byproducts and is situated at Coimbatore; that the petitioner availed over-draft limits and terms from the respondent-Bank at its R.S. Puram branch at Coimbatore; that a loan was granted against the equitable mortgage of properties located at Coimbatore and the money was also disbursed at Coimbatore. The learned senior counsel submits that only for the presentation of the cheque M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 720 [2025] 3 S.C.R. the Bank has proceeded to Chandigarh. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, there shall be stay of further proceedings in Complaint Case No.4016 of 2021 titled as “Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Shri Sendhur Agro and Oil Industries”, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UT, Chandigarh.”

Thereafter, on 29th November 2024, the following order was passed: “1. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Bank prays for a short adjournment to seek appropriate instructions in the matters.

Prima facie, it appears that the entire transaction had taken place in Coimbatore, State of Tamil Nadu. However, the Bank seems to have filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Chandigarh.

The bank owes an explanation why it thought fit to file complaints in Chandigarh and not in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

Post these matters on 6-12-2024.” WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

The written submissions of the petitioner read as under: "A. The scope of powers under Section 406 CrPC, 1973 (akin to Section 527 of CrPC, 1898 and Section 447 of BNSS, 2024) is the question which concerns this Hon’ble Court. B. One aspect of exercise of power of transfer is the introduction of Section 142A in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by Amending Act 26 of 2015, which has retrospective effect. Clause (2) of Section 142A contemplates a situation where cases against the same drawer ought to be filed in the same Court where the first case pertaining to dishonor of cheque is filed or “transferred”. Independent of the fact that the interpretation of this provision is being considered by this Hon’ble Court in Kedar Bhausaheb Malhari vs. Axis Bank Ltd. [TP (Crl.) 33 of 2018] where the Court Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 721 has impleaded the Union of India, taken assistance of an amicus curie and also requested the Ld.

In such circumstances referred to above the petitioner prayed that there being merit in his transfer petition the same may be allowed Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 727 and the proceedings be transferred from the UT of Chandigarh to the State of Tamil Nadu. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BANK:

The written submissions filed by the respondent Bank read as under: “A. It is submitted that the Respondent is Banking company within the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On the basis of representations made by the petitioner, the respondent extended credit facilities to the petitioner and its group companies. The petitioners however defaulted on repayments and as of July 2022, owed a sum of more than Rs. 34.14 Cr. to the Respondent. B. The Respondent Bank filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) in accordance with law before the competent court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated. In this regard it is submitted the Cheque was presented at Respondent’s Chandigarh Branch for the reason that the routing/collection account in respect of the subject cheque (in a NPA account) was located at Chandigarh.

In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank prayed that there being no merit in the transfer petition, the same may be rejected. ANALYSIS

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the following questions fall for our consideration. i. Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other in exercise of powers under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed? ii. Assuming that the court in which the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the same, then is it permissible for this court in exercise of powers under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer the said complaint to the court having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence? iii. Whether the expression “that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place.” in Section Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 731 406 Cr.P.C. embraces in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act?

Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must look into a few relevant provisions of the N.I. Act. Section 138 of the N.I. Act reads thus:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.— Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 732 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

What is relevant for our purpose is Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Section 142 relates to the cognizance of offences. Section 142 reads thus:

142. Cognizance of offences.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)— (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138. (2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction, — (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.

Section 142-A of the N.I. Act provides for validation for transfer of pending cases. Section 142-A reads thus:

Validation for transfer of pending cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 733 having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub- section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.

This court in the case of Yogesh Upadhaya and Another v. Atlanta Limited reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 170 had the occasion to consider the plea for transfer filed under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in connection with six complaint cases filed under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act respectively. While considering the plea for transfer, the court had the opportunity to consider Section 142(2) contained in the statute book along with Section 142-A.

The relevant observations in Yogesh Upadhaya (Supra) read as thus: “ 6. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [(1999) 7 SCC 510], this Court held that an offence under Section M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 734 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 138 of the Act of 1881 has five components : (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, and (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It was further held that the Courts having jurisdiction over the territorial limits wherein any of the five acts, that constitute the components of the offence, occurred would have the jurisdiction to deal with the case and if the five acts were done in five different areas, any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in those five areas would have jurisdiction and the complainant could choose any one of those Courts.

7. Thereafter, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 9 SCC 129], a 3-Judges Bench of this Court observed that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank would alone constitute commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and would indicate the place where the offence is committed. It was, therefore, held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank is located, i.e., where the cheque is dishonoured upon presentation and not where the complainant’s bank is situated.

8. In this regard, it may be noted that Section 142 of the Act of 1881, titled ‘Cognizance of Offences’, provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 except on a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause I of the proviso to Section 138; and no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under Section 138.

9. Significantly, the aforestated original Section 142 of the Act of 1881 was renumbered as Section 142(1) Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 735 when amendments were made in the Act of 1881 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 26 of 2015). Further, Section 142(2) was inserted in the statute book along with Section 142-A. The newly inserted Section 142(2), to the extent relevant, states that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction - (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated.

10. This being the statutory scheme, stress is laid by Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, learned counsel, upon the words: ‘shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction……’in Section 142(2) to contend that the Courts at Nagpur would have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the dishonoured cheques presented by the respondent company through its bank at Nagpur.

11. Perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in Amendment Act 26 of 2015 makes it amply clear that insertion of Sections 142(2) and 142-A in the Act of 1881 was a direct consequence of the judgment of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra). Therefore, the use of the phrase: ‘shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction……’in Section 142(2) of the Act 1881 is contextual to the ratio laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) to the contrary, whereby territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 vested in the Court having jurisdiction over the drawee bank and not the complainant’s bank where he had presented the cheque. Section 142(2) now makes it clear that the jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly inserted Section 142-A further clarifies this position by validating the transfer of pending cases to the Courts conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment.

12. The later decision of this Court in Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh [(2016) 2 SCC 75] affirmed M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 736 [2025] 3 S.C.R. the legal position obtaining after the amendment of the Act of 1881 and endorsed that Section 142(2)(a) of the Act of 1881 vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account. This Court also affirmed that Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) would not non-suit the company in so far as territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was concerned.” (Emphasis supplied)

In Yogesh Upadhaya (Supra), this Court also considered the effect of the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the N.I. Act so as to examine whether the same would override Section 406 Cr.P.C. In this regard the court observed thus: “13. Therefore, institution of the first two complaint cases before the Courts at Nagpur is in keeping with the legal position obtaining now. However, the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881 would override Section 406 Cr. P.C. and that it would not be permissible for this Court to transfer the said complaint cases, in exercise of power thereunder, cannot be countenanced. It may be noted that the non obstante clause was there in the original Section 142 itself and was not introduced by way of the amendments in the year 2015, along with Section 142(2). The said clause merely has reference to the manner in which cognizance is to be taken in offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as a departure has to be made from the usual procedure inasmuch as prosecution for the said offence stands postponed despite commission of the offence being complete upon dishonour of the cheque and it must necessarily be in terms of the procedure prescribed.

14. In the case on hand, as the six complaint cases pertain to the same transaction, it would be advisable to have a common adjudication to obviate the possibility of contradictory findings being rendered in connection therewith by different Courts. As four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, including the parties and their witnesses, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi.”

Thus, in Yogesh Upadhaya (supra), this Court took note of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, wherein it was held that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has five components: (i) drawing of the cheque, (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 738 [2025] 3 S.C.R. (iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

It was further held that the jurisdiction to deal with the case vests in the Court having jurisdiction over the territorial limits wherein any of the five acts referred to above that constitute the components of the offence, occurred. If the five acts were done in five different areas, then any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in those five areas would have jurisdiction and the complainant could choose any one of those Courts.

Further, it relied on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, wherein it was held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank is located, i.e., where the cheque is dishonoured upon presentation and not where the complainant’s bank is situated.

The Court took note of Section 142 of the N.I. Act and the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, and said that the newly inserted Section 142(2) provides that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction – (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated.

The Court after examining the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the N.I. Amendment Act, 2015, stated that the insertion of Sections 142(2) and 142-A in the N.I. Act was a direct consequence of the judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra). Section 142(2) now makes it clear that the jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly inserted Section 142-A further clarifies this position by validating the transfer of pending cases to the Courts conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment came into force.

The Court further noted that Bridgestone India Private Limited (Supra) affirmed the change in legal position after the amendment Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 739 of the N.I. Act and endorsed that Section 142(2)(a) vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder, in due course, maintains an account.

Therefore, the Court said that the institution of the first two complaint cases before the Courts at Nagpur would be in accordance with the changed legal position after the amendment came into force. However, it rejected the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the NI Act would override Section 406 CrPC and that it would not be permissible for this Court to transfer the said complaint cases.

The Court noted that the non obstante clause was already present in the original Section 142(1) and was not introduced by way of the amendments in the year 2015, along with Section 142(2). The non obstante clause merely has reference to the manner in which cognizance is to be taken in an offence under Section 138. The same must not be construed to mean that the power of this Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under Section 406 CrPC stands abrogated thereby in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

After placing reliance on A.E. Premanand v. Escorts Finance Ltd., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 52, the Court had held that notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the NI Act, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice to order such transfer.

Before we proceed further it is necessary to clarify that in Yogesh Upadhaya (supra) this Court was dealing with the transfer of six complaint cases under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. Ultimately, considering Section 142(2) along with Section 142-A of the N.I. Act, this Court held that two out of six complaints instituted at Nagpur were in accordance with the legal position. However, since the other four complaints also pertained to the same transaction, the court felt that it would be advisable to have a common adjudication with a view to obviate the possibility of any contradictory findings being rendered in connection with the said complaints by different courts. In such circumstances, all the six complaints were ordered to be transferred to the South-west district courts, Dwarka, New Delhi. M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 740 [2025] 3 S.C.R. SECTION 406 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

We now proceed to consider Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. Section 406 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. (2)The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The present section corresponds to Section 527 of the old Cr.P.C. The Cr.P.C. clothes this Court with the power under Section 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. The expression therein “expedient for the ends of justice” assumes significance.

The power to transfer vested in the High Court, so far as the Cr.P.C. is concerned, is dealt with and was intended by the Legislature to be dealt with solely by Section 407 (Section 526 of the old Cr.P.C.). On the other hand, Section 406(1) (Section 527(1) of the old CrPC) clearly implies that it is only the Supreme Court that has the power Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 741 to transfer a case pending in a Court subordinate to one High Court to be tried by a Court subordinate to another High Court.

A case is transferred by virtue of the powers under Section 406 if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. There, however, must be reliable material from which it can be inferred that there are impediments that are interfering or likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the cause of justice. POSITION OF LAW

In Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 92, this Court, in an identical situation like the one on hand, held as under: “8. Thus, in effect, transfer is sought primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) lack of territorial jurisdiction and (ii) apprehension of bias.

17. As seen from the pleadings and the rival contentions, the petitioner seeks transfer, primarily on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the question of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases, revolves mainly around (i) cause of action; or (ii) location of the subject-matter of the suit or (iii) the residence of the defendant, etc., according as the case may be, the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases revolves around (i) place of commission of the offence or (ii) place where the consequence of an act, both of which constitute an offence, ensues or (iii) place where the accused was found or (iv) place where the victim was found or (v) place where the property in respect of which the offence was committed, was found or (vi) place where the property forming the subject-matter of an offence was required to be returned or accounted for, etc., according as the case may be.

18. While jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by (i) territorial and (ii) pecuniary limits, the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by (i) the offence and/or (ii) the offender. But the main difference between the question M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 742 [2025] 3 S.C.R. of jurisdiction raised in civil cases and the question of jurisdiction arising in criminal cases, is two-fold.

18.1. The first is that the stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction, territorial or pecuniary, can be raised, is regulated in civil proceedings by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

18.2. The second is that in civil proceedings, a plaint can be returned, under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, to be presented to the proper court, at any stage of the proceedings. But in criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a Magistrate under Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to return a complaint. The power is limited in the sense (a) that it is available before taking cognizance, as Section 201 uses the words “Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance” and (b) that the power is limited only to complaints, as the word “complaint”, as defined by Section 2(d), does not include a “police report”.

19. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains provisions relating to jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials. The Code maintains a distinction between (i) inquiry; (ii) investigation; and (iii) trial. The words “inquiry” and “investigation” are defined respectively, in clauses (g) and (h) of Section 2 of the Code.

20. The principles laid down in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code (contained in Chapter XIII) regarding the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials can be summarised in simple terms as follows:

20.1. Every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This rule is found in Section 177. The expression “local jurisdiction” found in Section 177 is defined in Section 2(j) to mean “in relation to a court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under the Code”. Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 743

20.2. In case of uncertainty about the place in which, among the several local areas, an offence was committed, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas may inquire into or try such an offence.

20.3. Where an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

20.4. In the case of a continuing offence which is committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

20.5. Where an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (Numbers 2 to 5 are traceable to Section 178)

20.6. Where something is an offence by reason of the act done, as well as the consequence that ensued, then the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. (Section 179)

20.7. In cases where an act is an offence, by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence, then the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either of the acts was done. (Section 180)

20.8. In certain cases such as dacoity, dacoity with murder, escaping from custody, etc., the offence may be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either the offence was committed or the accused person was found.

20.9. In the case of an offence of kidnapping or abduction, it may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or conveyed or concealed or detained.

20.10. The offences of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed, received or retained. M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 744 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

20.11. An offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person.

20.12. An offence which includes the possession of stolen property, may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person, having knowledge that it is stolen property. (Nos. 8 to 12 are found in Section 181)

20.13. An offence which includes cheating, if committed by means of letters or telecommunication messages, may be inquired into or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or received.

20.14. An offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of the property may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person.

20.15. Some offences relating to marriage such as Section 494 IPC (marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife) and Section 495 IPC (committing the offence under Section 494 with concealment of former marriage) may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with the spouse by the first marriage. (Nos. 13 to 15 are found in Section 182)

20.16. An offence committed in the course of a journey or voyage may be inquired into or tried by a court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage. (Section 183).

20.17. Cases falling under Section 219 (three offences of the same kind committed within a space of twelve months whether in respect of the same person or not), cases falling under Section 220 (commission of more offences than one, Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 745 in one series of acts committed together as to form the same transaction) and cases falling under Section 221, (where it is doubtful what offences have been committed), may be inquired into or tried by any court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences. (Section 184).

21. Apart from Sections 177 to 184, which lay down in elaborate detail, the rules relating to jurisdiction, Chapter XIII of the Code also contains a few other sections. Section 185 empowers the State Government to order any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district, to be tried in any Sessions Division. Section 186 empowers the High Court, in case where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question as to which of them should inquire into or try the offence has arisen, to decide the district where the inquiry or trial shall take place. Section 187 speaks of the powers of the Magistrate, in case where a person within his local jurisdiction, has committed an offence outside his jurisdiction, but the same cannot be inquired into or tried within such jurisdiction. Sections 188 and 189 deal with offences committed outside India.

22. After laying down in such great detail, the rules relating to territorial jurisdiction in Chapter XIII, the Code of Criminal Procedure makes provisions in Chapter XXXV, as to the fate of irregular proceedings. It is in that Chapter XXXV that one has to search for an answer to the question as to what happens when a court which has no territorial jurisdiction, inquires or tries an offence.

23. Section 460 lists out 9 irregularities, which, if done in good faith by the Magistrate, may not vitiate his proceedings. Section 461 lists out 17 irregularities, which if done by the Magistrate, will make the whole proceedings void. Clause (l) of Section 461 is of significance and it reads as follows:

461. Irregularities which vitiate proceedings.—If any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely— M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 746 [2025] 3 S.C.R. (a)-(k) *** (l) tries an offender: *** his proceedings shall be void

24. Then comes Section 462, which saves the proceedings that had taken place in a wrong Sessions Division or district or local area. But this is subject to the condition that no failure of justice has occasioned on account of the mistake. Section 462 reads as follows:

462. Proceedings in wrong place.—No finding, sentence or order of any criminal court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong Sessions Division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

25. A cursory reading of Sections 461(l) and 462 gives an impression that there is some incongruity. Under clause (l) of Section 461 if a Magistrate not being empowered by law to try an offender, wrongly tries him, his proceedings shall be void. A proceeding which is void under Section 461 cannot be saved by Section 462. The focus of clause (l) of Section 461 is on the “offender” and not on the “offence”. If clause (l) had used the words “tries an offence” rather than the words “tries an offender”, the consequence might have been different.

26. It is significant to note that Section 460, which lists out nine irregularities that would not vitiate the proceedings, uses the word “offence” in three places, namely, clauses (b), (d) and (e). Section 460 does not use the word “offender” even once.

27. On the contrary Section 461 uses the word “offence” only once, namely, in clause (a), but uses the word “offender” twice, namely, in clauses (l) and (m). Therefore, it is clear that if an offender is tried by a Magistrate not Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 747 empowered by law in that behalf, his proceedings shall be void under Section 461. Section 462 does not make the principle contained therein to have force notwithstanding anything contained in Section 461.

28. Section 26 of the Code divides offences into two categories, namely, (i) offences under IPC and (ii) offences under any other special law. Insofar as offences under IPC are concerned, clause (a) of Section 26 states that they may be tried by (i) the High Court or (ii) the Court of Session or (iii) any other court, by which such offence is shown in the first Schedule to be triable. In respect of offences under any other law, clause (b) of Section 26 states that they shall be tried by the court specifically mentioned in such special law. In case the special law is silent about the court by which it can be tried, then such an offence may be tried either by the High Court or by any other court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.

29. But clause (a) of Section 26 makes the provisions contained therein, subject to the other provisions of the Code. Therefore, a question arose before this Court in State of U.P. v. Sabir Ali [State of U.P. v. Sabir Ali, AIR 1964 SC 1673 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 606] as to whether a conviction and punishment handed over by a Magistrate of First Class for an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1948 were void, in the light of Section 15(2) of the Special Act. Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act made the offences under the Act triable only by a Magistrate of Second or Third Class. Though the entire trial in that case took place before a Magistrate of Second Class, he was conferred with the powers of a Magistrate of First Class, before he pronounced the judgment. This Court held that the proceedings were void under Section 530(p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as it stood at that time). It is relevant to note that Section 461(l) of the 1973 Code is in pari materia with Section 530(p) of the 1898 Code.

30. What is now clause (a) of Section 26 of the 1973 Code, is what was Section 28 of the 1898 Code. The only difference M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 748 [2025] 3 S.C.R. between the two is that Section 28 of the 1898 Code referred to the eighth column of the Second Schedule, but Section 26(a) of the 1973 Code refers to the First Schedule. Similarly, clause (b) of Section 26 of the 1973 Code is nothing but what was Section 29 of the 1898 Code.

31. What is significant to note from the 1898 Code and the 1973 Code is that the question of jurisdiction dealt with by Sections 28 and 29 of the 1898 Code and Section 26 of the 1973 Code, is relatable only to the offence and not to the offender. The power of a court to try an offence is directly governed by clauses (a) and (b) of Section 26 of the 1973 Code, as it was governed by Sections 28 and 29 of the 1898 Code.

32. In other words, the jurisdiction of a criminal court is normally relatable to the offence and in some cases, to the offender, such as cases where the offender is a juvenile (Section 27) or where the victim is a women [the proviso to clause (a) of Section 26]. But Section 461(l) focuses on the offender and not on the offence.

The saving clause contained in Section 462 of the 1973 Code is in pari materia with Section 531 of the 1898 Code. In the light of Section 531 of the 1898 Code, a question arose before the Calcutta High Court in Ramnath Sardar v. Rekharani Sardar [Ramnath Sardar v. Rekharani Sardar, 1975 SCC OnLine Cal 168 : 1975 Cri LJ 1139], as to the stage at which an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court could be raised and considered. In that case, the objection to the territorial jurisdiction raised before a Magistrate in a petition for maintenance filed by the wife against the husband, was rejected by the Magistrate both on merits and on the basis of the saving clause in Section 531. But the High Court held [Ramnath Sardar v. Rekharani Sardar, 1975 SCC OnLine Cal 168 : 1975 Cri LJ 1139] that Section 531 would apply only after the decision or finding or order is arrived at by any Magistrate or court in a wrong jurisdiction and that if any objection to the territorial jurisdiction is taken in any proceeding, it would be the duty of the Magistrate to deal with the same. Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 749

In Raj Kumari Vijh v. Dev Raj Vijh [Raj Kumari Vijh v. Dev Raj Vijh, (1977) 2 SCC 190 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 294 : AIR 1977 SC 1101] , which also arose out of a case filed by the wife for maintenance against the husband, the Magistrate rejected a prayer for deciding the question of jurisdiction before recording the evidence. Actually the Magistrate passed an order holding that the question of jurisdiction must await the recording of the evidence on the whole case. Ultimately the Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application. One of the reasons why he came to the said conclusion was that in the reply filed by the husband there was no specific denial of the wife’s allegation that the parties last resided together within his jurisdiction. When the matter eventually reached this Court, this Court relied upon the decision in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of W.B. [Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of W.B., AIR 1961 SC 1589 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 728] to point out that there are two types of jurisdictional issues for a criminal court, namely, (i) the jurisdiction with respect of the power of the court to try particular kinds of offences, and (ii) its territorial jurisdiction.

It was specifically held by this Court in Raj Kumari Vijh [Raj Kumari Vijh v. Dev Raj Vijh, (1977) 2 SCC 190 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 294 : AIR 1977 SC 1101] that the question of jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court to try particular kinds of offences goes to the root of the matter and that any transgression of the same would make the entire trial void. However, territorial jurisdiction, according to this Court

is a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular court, the convenience of the accused … and the convenience of the witnesses who have to appear before the Court

. (SCC p. 194 para 7)

After making such a distinction between two different types of jurisdictional issues, this Court concluded in that case, that where a Magistrate has the power to try a particular offence, but the controversy relates solely to his territorial jurisdiction, the case would normally be covered M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 750 [2025] 3 S.C.R. by the saving clause under Section 531 of the 1898 Code (present Section 462 of the 1973 Code).

From the above discussion, it is possible to take a view that the words “tries an offence” are more appropriate than the words “tries an offender” in Section 461(l). This is because, lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by Section 462 and hence Section 461, logically, could have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void. In contrast, the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of Section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender (such as in Section 27). But Section 461(l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do.

But be that as it may, the upshot of the above discussion is:

38.1. That the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence.

38.2. That if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code.

38.3. That these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same.

Having taken note of the legal position, let me now come back to the cases on hand.

As seen from the pleadings, the type of jurisdictional issue, raised in the cases on hand, is one of territorial jurisdiction, at least as of now. The answer to this depends upon facts to be established by evidence. The facts to be established by evidence, may relate either to the place of commission of the offence or to other things dealt with by Sections 177 to 184 of the Code. In such circumstances, Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 751 this Court cannot order transfer, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, even before evidence is marshalled. Hence, the transfer petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.

However, it is open to both parties to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction, lead evidence on questions of fact that may fall within the purview of Sections 177 to 184 read with Section 26 of the Code and invite a finding. With the above observations the transfer petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.”

33. Thus, this Court said the following: (i) (ii) the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence; if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184 of the Code; and (iii) these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same.

34. While jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by (i) territorial and (ii) pecuniary limits, the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by (i) the offence and/or (ii) the offender. But the main difference between the question of jurisdiction raised in civil cases and the question of jurisdiction arising in criminal cases, is two-fold i.e.: CIVIL COURT CRIMINAL COURT The stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction, territorial or pecuniary, can be raised, is regulated in civil proceedings by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In civil proceedings, a plaint can be returned, under Order VII, Rule 10, CPC, to be presented to the proper court, at any stage of the proceedings But in criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a Magistrate under section 201 of the Code, to return a complaint. The power is limited in the sense that: M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 752 [2025] 3 S.C.R. But in criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a Magistrate under section 201 of the Code, to return a complaint. The power is limited in the sense that:

2. it is available before taking cognizance, as section 201 uses the words “Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance” the power is limited only to complaints, as the word “complaint”, as defined by section 2(d), does not include a “police report”.

35. The Court looked into the following distinction: “TRIES AN OFFENCE” VERSUS “TRIES AN OFFENDER” UNDER SECTION 461(l) CrPC, WHICH IS MORE APPROPRIATE? The rules relating to territorial jurisdiction are given in Chapter XIII in detail. However, it is in that Chapter XXXV that one has to search for an answer to the question as to what happens when a court which has no territorial jurisdiction, inquires or tries an offence. A cursory reading of Section 461(l) and Section 462 gives an impression that there is some incongruity. Under Clause (l) of Section 461 if a Magistrate not being empowered by law to try an offender, wrongly tries him, his proceedings shall be void. A proceeding which is void under Section 461 cannot be saved by Section 462

36. The focus of clause (l) of Section 461# is on the “offender” and not on the “offence”. If clause (l) had used the words “tries an offence” rather than the words “tries an offender”, the consequence might have been different.

37. Section 460, which lists out nine irregularities that would not vitiate the proceedings, uses the word “offence” in three places namely clauses (b), (d) and (e). Section 460 does not use the word “offender” # Ed. Note: “Section 461” instead of “Section 461 18” in terms of subsequent corrigendum. Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 753 even once. On the contrary Section 461 uses the word ‘offence’ only once, namely in clause (a), but uses the word “offender” twice namely in clauses (l) and (m).

38. Therefore, it is clear that if an offender is tried by a Magistrate not empowered by law in that behalf, his proceedings shall be void under Section 461. Section 462 does not make the principle contained therein to have force notwithstanding anything contained in Section 461.

39. Hence, the jurisdiction of a criminal Court is normally relatable to the offence and in some cases, to the offender, such as cases where the offender is a juvenile (section 27) or where the victim is a women [the proviso to clause (a) of section 26]. But Section 461(l) focuses on the offender and not on the offence. The saving clause contained in Section 462 of the Code of 1973 is in pari materia with Section 531 of the Code of 1898.

40. Considering the aforementioned scheme of CrPC, the Court held that the words “tries an offence” are more appropriate than the words “tries an offender” in section 461 (l). This is because, lack of jurisdiction to try an offence cannot be cured by section 462 and hence section 461, logically, could have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate, not empowered by law to do so, as one of the several items which make the proceedings void.

41. In contrast, the trial of an offender by a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction, can be saved because of section 462, provided there is no other bar for the court to try the said offender (such as in section 27). But Section 461 (l) makes the proceedings of a Magistrate void, if he tried an offender, when not empowered by law to do.

Thus, in the aforesaid case, this Court declined to transfer the matter having noticed that the case was one of territorial jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this Court left it open to both the parties, i.e., the accused and the complainant to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the court concerned.

In the case of United States v. National City Lines, reported in 337 U.S. 78, the U.S. district court of the southern district of California observed thus: “The Discretionary Power to Transfer: There remains the question: Do the facts warrant the granting of the motion? M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 754 [2025] 3 S.C.R. A Conditions for Transfer Before answering this question by reference to the facts, we consider briefly the meaning of the transfer provision. The wording of the clause is different from that of the corresponding provision in the criminal rules. The latter calls for a transfer “if the court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred.” The section under consideration provides for transfer “for the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice” While both sections use the identical phrase “in the interest of justice” as a criterion, the civil transfer rule uses the phrase in juxtaposition with the convenience requirement.

In Bhiaru Ram & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors reported in (2010) 7 SCC 799 this Court observed thus: “7. Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers this Court to transfer any case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. We are concerned about sub-section (1) of Section 406 which reads as under:

406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.—(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.

8. It is clear from the abovesaid provision that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place. In order to transfer a case from one State to another or from one place to another, there must be “reasonable apprehension” on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done. Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done, cannot be the basis of transfer. In fact, in the case on hand, it is not the claim of the petitioners that they may not get fair justice at Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai but they are seeking transfer mainly on the basis of convenience stating that all of them are hailing from Rajasthan and majority of the witnesses going to be examined are from Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9. In a recent judgment pronounced on 23-7-2010 in D.A.V. Boys Sr. Sec. School v. D.A.V. College Managing Committee [(2010) 8 SCC 401], this Court while considering the power of this Court to transfer suits, appeals, etc. on the civil side under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code has held that: M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 758 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Section 25 of the Code itself makes it clear that if any application is made for transfer, after notice to the parties, if the Court is satisfied that an order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice necessary direction may be issued for transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceedings from a High Court or other civil court in one State to another High Court or other civil court in any other State. In order to maintain fair trial, this Court can exercise this power and transfer the proceedings to an appropriate court. The mere convenience of the parties may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Further illustrations are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which suit is pending. The abovementioned instances are only illustrative in nature. In the interest of justice and to adherence of fair trial, this Court exercises its discretion and order transfer in a suit or appeal or other proceedings.

From the above, it is clear that the abovementioned principles have to be kept in mind while dealing with transfer petitions.

10. In the case on hand, except convenience, the petitioners have not pressed into service any other ground for transfer. In fact, Mr P.H. Parekh, informed this Court that the petitioners are willing to attend the proceedings at Delhi, if the case is transferred to Special Court, CBI, Delhi.

11. Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, after taking us through specific averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 (CBI), submitted that the main accused Shri B.R. Meena is a very influential person in the State of Rajasthan and there is strong apprehension that due to influence of Shri Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 759 B.R. Meena, there would be no fair trial at Jaipur or any other place in the State of Rajasthan. He also pointed out that the Court of Special Judge, CBI at Greater Mumbai has ample jurisdiction to try this case because various movable properties have been found in Mumbai and the main accused, Shri B.R. Meena, was posted in Mumbai from 2001 to the end of the check period i.e. 4-10-2005 and this is the period during which most of the properties were allegedly acquired by him and his family members.

12. We have already adverted to the fact that against the main accused Shri B.R. Meena, (IRS 1977), Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, a case has been registered on 29-9-2005 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possession of assets in his own name and in the name of his family members to the extent of Rs 43,29,394 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and could not be satisfactorily accounted for. It further shows that Respondent 3, during the check period i.e. 1-4-1993 to 4-10-2005, acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs 1,39,39,025.

13. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Section 109 read with Section 193 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having actively aided and abetted Respondents 3 to 4 by fabricating false evidence through preparation of false agreements to sell with the object to justify/explain the huge cash recoveries from the residential premises of Respondent 3. It further reveals that the petitioners entered into false transactions with Respondent 3 showing receipt of cash amounts against alleged purchase of immovable properties from him. The stamp papers were purchased against (sic after) registration of case and false agreements to sell were prepared in connivance with each other.

14. A perusal of the charge-sheet containing all these details clearly shows that witnesses to be examined are M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 760 [2025] 3 S.C.R. not only from Jaipur, Rajasthan, but also from various other places including Mumbai. Though the petitioners may have a little inconvenience, the mere inconvenience may not be sufficient ground for the exercise of power of transfer but it must be shown that the trial in the chosen forum will result in failure of justice.

15. We have already pointed out that except the plea of inconvenience on the ground that they have to come all the way from Rajasthan no other reason was pressed into service. Even, the request for transfer to Delhi cannot be accepted since it would not be beneficial either to the petitioners or to the prosecution. In fact, the main accused, Respondents 3 and 4 have not filed any petition seeking transfer. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioners for transfer of the case from the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai to Special Judge, CBI, Jaipur on the ground of inconvenience cannot be accepted.” (Emphasis supplied)

In Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade Private Limited reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 378 this Court observed thus: “5. Now the petitioner wants the criminal case pending in the Salem Court to be transferred to the Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Two main grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of his plea, argued by Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, learned Senior Advocate. One is that the points involved in the criminal case are similar to the suits which are being tried and determined by the Delhi High Court. The other ground taken is that the proceeding in the Salem Court is being conducted in Tamil, which the petitioner does not understand. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that it would be more convenient for the parties to conduct the proceeding in New Delhi as the civil suits are being heard in the Delhi High Court only. The petitioner also complains about distance of over 2000 kilometres between Salem and petitioner’s own place of residence at Indore and alleges that there is no direct connectivity between these two places. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner are (i) Sri Jayendra Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 761