Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Harita Sunil Parab v. State of NCT of Delhi

Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2018 INSC 290Decided 28 Mar 2018
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 254-255 of 2017
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel · Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

The petitioner, a Mumbai-based advocate, sought to transfer the investigation/trial of two FIRs lodged by her in Delhi (alleging offences including outraging modesty and theft) to a court in Mumbai, and separately sought transfer of a railway-offence case against her from Ratlam to Mumbai. She argued she feared an unfair investigation in Delhi and that frequent travel was hurting her legal practice in Mumbai.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that a transfer requires a reasonable, not merely subjective, apprehension that justice will not be done, and that convenience for transfer purposes must weigh the interests of witnesses and the prosecution, not just the petitioner. It noted investigation in both Delhi FIRs was already complete with charge sheets filed, so any grievance about the investigation itself should be raised before the trial court rather than through transfer. Finding the petitioner's safety concerns too speculative and noting she had long travelled between Mumbai and Delhi for professional reasons, the Court rejected all three transfer petitions.

Lesson Learnt

A request to transfer a criminal case must be backed by a reasonable, objectively justifiable apprehension of injustice: personal inconvenience or unsubstantiated fear, without more, will not persuade a court to shift a trial or investigation to another city.

Harita Sunil Parab v. State of NCT of Delhi – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware