Supreme Court Transfers Criminal Case in Swaati Nirkhi v. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court of India has issued a ruling in the case of Swaati Nirkhi & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., concerning the transfer of a criminal case involving allegations of extortion, false accusations, and threats. The petition sought the transfer of the trial from Rohini Courts, New Delhi, to Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh. The case highlights key issues regarding jurisdiction, convenience of trial, and the fair administration of justice.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when FIR No. 39/2016 was filed on 07.01.2016 at Mangol Puri Police Station, Delhi, under Section 389 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The complaint alleged that Mohan Srivastava, Swaati Saxena, Sanjay Saxena, and Shashank Saxena engaged in an extortion attempt against the complainant, whose nephew, Ashish Khare, was married to Swaati Nirkhi.

According to the complainant, Swaati Nirkhi left for her parental home in Allahabad on 07.08.2015 and refused to return. On 25.11.2015, the complainant received a message from Mohan Srivastava demanding Rs. 5 crores to settle the matter. The complainant alleged that on 06.12.2015, he was falsely accused of gang rape by Swaati Nirkhi, allegedly as part of the extortion scheme.

A charge sheet was filed on 29.06.2017, naming Swaati Nirkhi, Sanjay Saxena, Shashank Saxena, Mohan Srivastava, and Jugal Kishore Yadav as accused under Sections 389, 419, 506, 120B, and 34 IPC. The case was taken up by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, Delhi, and summons were issued.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, including Swaati Nirkhi, sought to transfer the case to Allahabad, arguing:

There were already nine cases pending between the parties in Allahabad, six of which were filed by the complainant and three by the petitioner.
The financial burden of defending themselves in Delhi was too high.
Swaati Nirkhi’s father was a senior citizen with severe health issues, making travel difficult.
Deputy Mayor of Gaya, Bihar, another accused in the case, argued that traveling from Gaya to Delhi would affect his public duties.
Transferring the case to Allahabad would cause no inconvenience to the complainant, who was already prosecuting six cases there.

Respondents’ Arguments

The complainant, Respondent No. 4, opposed the transfer, stating:

The alleged extortion and false allegations occurred in Delhi, making it the proper jurisdiction.
The case involved 23 witnesses, 12 of whom were official witnesses stationed in Delhi.
Traveling to Allahabad would disrupt the work of government officials who were called to testify.
Despite claiming financial hardship, Swaati Nirkhi had filed 13 cases in different courts, including in Delhi and Allahabad.
The petitioners failed to appear in 36 hearings from 09.07.2018 to 07.12.2020 after securing a transfer to Allahabad, indicating that the transfer was merely a delay tactic.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, analyzed the jurisdictional aspects and practical considerations of transferring the case.

1. Criminal Cases Must Be Tried Where the Offense Occurred

“Under Section 177 of the CrPC, a criminal case should be tried in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offense was committed.”

The Court reaffirmed that since the alleged crime occurred in Delhi, the Rohini Court had jurisdiction.

2. Travel Inconvenience Not a Justifiable Ground

“Mere inconvenience or financial hardship cannot be a ground for transferring a criminal trial.”

The Court noted that the accused had managed to file and pursue cases in multiple jurisdictions.

3. Impact on Government Witnesses

“Transferring the case would require official witnesses to travel from Delhi to Allahabad, affecting their official duties and delaying proceedings.”

The Court acknowledged that keeping the case in Delhi ensured efficient witness testimony.

4. The Case Had Already Been Transferred Once

“The petitioners failed to appear in 36 hearings after obtaining a transfer to Allahabad, indicating an attempt to delay proceedings.”

The Court found that the petitioners’ previous conduct suggested they were stalling the case.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Based on the above observations, the Supreme Court ruled:

The transfer petition was dismissed.
The case was transferred back to Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, Delhi.
The petitioners were directed to appear before the Delhi court on 15.04.2021.
The Registry was instructed to send a copy of the judgment to the courts in Allahabad and Delhi.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces key legal principles:

Jurisdiction in criminal cases is based on where the alleged offense occurred.
Financial constraints are not sufficient grounds for transferring trials.
Attempts to delay proceedings by frequently seeking transfers will not be entertained.
Maintaining jurisdiction in the location of the alleged crime ensures proper witness examination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case establishes a clear precedent regarding trial jurisdiction in criminal matters. The decision prevents accused individuals from exploiting procedural loopholes to delay proceedings and ensures that cases are tried in the appropriate jurisdiction to facilitate a fair trial.

Petitioner Name: Swaati Nirkhi & Ors..
Respondent Name: State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 09-03-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: swaati-nirkhi-&-ors.-vs-state-(nct-of-delhi)-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-03-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category