Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Transferred Merely Because Complainant Finds It Difficult To Attend: Kerala High Court

"The convenience pleaded by the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, by itself cannot justify transfer of the criminal case by overlooking the statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction for criminal trials." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a criminal case cannot be transferred to another jurisdiction merely based on the convenience of the de facto complainant.

A single-judge bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the power to transfer criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only when there exists a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be delivered in the current forum.

The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in a case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Irinjalakuda, sought a transfer of the proceedings to a competent court in Palakkad. The case, registered in 2017, involved offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and his parents. The petitioner contended that residing in Coimbatore made traveling to Irinjalakuda difficult and alleged apprehension regarding her safety due to harassment by the accused.

The primary question before the court was whether the convenience and unsubstantiated safety apprehensions of a de facto complainant constitute sufficient grounds to transfer a pending criminal trial. The court was also called upon to determine if the statutory territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure could be bypassed solely for the complainant's ease of access.

General Apprehensions Without Proof Cannot Dictate Transfer

The court first addressed the petitioner’s claims regarding threats to her safety. It observed that the petitioner had only made general and omnibus allegations in the transfer petition without pleading any specific incident of harassment. Noting that the proceedings had been ongoing since 2017, the court emphasized that no evidence or police complaints were produced to substantiate these claims.

"In the absence of any tangible material supporting the plea of threat or intimidation, I am of the considered view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding her safety and security to appear before the trial court is wholly unsubstantiated."

Statutory Rules Govern Venue Of Trial

Delving into the legal principles governing territorial jurisdiction, the bench highlighted Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted that this provision mandates that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. While acknowledging that there is no absolute embargo on transferring cases, the court clarified that this power must be used sparingly.

Complainant's Convenience Not The Sole Criterion

The court strongly rejected the notion that the complainant's convenience should dictate the venue of a trial. It stated that transferring a criminal case cannot be ordered merely at the asking of a party, reiterating that the paramount consideration is securing the ends of justice. The convenience of all stakeholders, including the accused and witnesses, must be factored into the decision.

"The transfer of a criminal case cannot be ordered merely at the asking of a party. The settled legal position is that the power of transfer must be exercised only where there exists a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done if the matter continues before the court concerned."

Supreme Court Precedent On Convenience

To fortify its stance, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018 (6) SCC 358]. The bench emphasized that convenience in the context of case transfers implies the convenience of the prosecution, the accused, the witnesses, and the larger interest of society, rather than just the petitioner who approaches the court on misconceived notions.

Hardship To Elderly Accused Must Be Considered

Applying these principles to the facts at hand, the court observed that the second and third respondents—the parents of the first respondent—were aged over 65 years. The bench reasoned that transferring the case would cause significant inconvenience and hardship to the elderly accused, which the court cannot lose sight of while considering a transfer request.

No Allegation Of Bias Against Trial Court

The court also pointed out that the petitioner had not leveled any allegations of bias, prejudice, or lack of judicial independence against the magistrate at Irinjalakuda. In the absence of such allegations, the bench concluded that there was no material to indicate that the continuance of the proceedings before the present court would occasion a failure of justice.

Concluding that no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the transfer power were made out, the High Court dismissed the transfer petition. The ruling firmly reiterates that statutory provisions governing territorial jurisdiction in criminal trials cannot be overlooked merely for the convenience of the informant.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026