Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Cannot Exercise Power Of Transfer U/S 410 CrPC On Complaint By One Of The Parties: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that Section 410 CrPC does not empower a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise power of transfer on complaint by one of the parties.
The Court noted that under Section 410 CrPC, the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is administrative in nature.
Disagreeing with the view taken by Bombay HC in Mahfooskhan Mehboob Sheikh vs. R. J. Parakh - LAWS(BOM)- 1979- 11-8, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed, “ I am not in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the High Court of Bombay holding that the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is empowered under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. to entertain an application seeking transfer not only on the administrative ground but also on the judicial ground."
Advocate Jaysham Jayasimha Rao appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sarvana S appeared for the Respondent.
In the present case, an application was filed by the Respondent before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for the transfer of two cases which were pending before two different Courts of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the exercise of his power under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. allowed the prayer made by the Respondent and ordered the transfer of the two criminal cases pending before two different Courts of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to another Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
The Court agreed with the opinion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Gujarat High Court in A. K. Singh, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur vs. Virendra Kumar Jain, Advocate and Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and Another respectively.
The Court relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s opinion which held, “The Chief Judicial Magistrate was expected to act independently and for the interest of justice. The Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have committed severe illegalities; firstly, the transfer petition moved before him was under section 410, Criminal Procedure Code, Under that provision the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is administrative in nature. It is to keep equilibrium of cases amongst the various Magistrates working under him in the district. He can withdraw cases from one Magistrate and send them to another. This provision does not empower a Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise power of transfer on complaint by one of the parties.
Further, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed, “For that, the remedy to the aggrieved party is under section 408, Criminal Procedure Code. That power is exercised by the Sessions Judge. He can transfer cases from one criminal Court to another in his Session Division ‘when he considers it expedient to do so for the ends of Justice’. He can transfer a particular case from one court to another. He may act either on the report of the lower court or on the application of the party interested or on his own initiative. So, this is the provision which provides remedy to an aggrieved person, who feels to have lost faith in a particular criminal court for one or other reason. His remedy is not under section 410, Criminal Procedure Code.”
The Court eminently relied on the above finding and allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Cause Title: M/s Radical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Padmanabh T.G.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Jaysham Jayasimha Rao
Respondent: Advocates Sarvana S and Satyanarayana S Chalke
