1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's judgment in Rajendra Khare v. Swati Nirkhi (2021 INSC 45) serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of criminal jurisprudence, particularly concerning the procedural integrity of transfer petitions and the scope of the Court’s review jurisdiction. This case revolved around the petitioner, Rajendra Khare, who filed a First Information Report (FIR) leading to a criminal case. The central issue emerged when the transfer petition filed by the respondents was granted without adhering to the procedural safeguards, prompting the petitioner to seek a review of the initial transfer order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner, Rajendra Khare, initiated a criminal case by lodging an FIR against respondents Nos.1 to 5. The respondents filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to shift the trial venue from Rohini, Delhi to Allahabad. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 18.05.2018, transferred the case without issuing the mandatory notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, thereby not allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the transfer. The petitioner filed a review petition arguing that this omission violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the matter, identified the procedural lapses and allowed the review petition, setting aside the initial transfer order and reviving the transfer petition with the petitioner impleaded as a respondent.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references landmark cases that delineate the scope of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction. Notably:

• Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2017) 8 SCC 518: Clarified that review applications in criminal proceedings are permissible only on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record.
• Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 8 SCC 149: Emphasized that the review jurisdiction should not be used to reargue appeals but to rectify apparent errors leading to miscarriage of justice.
• P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680: Discussed the expansive interpretation of "record" in the context of review petitions.
• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 278: Highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural norms to prevent judicial fallibility.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court underscored that the review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution, complemented by Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, empowers the Supreme Court to rectify glaring errors or omissions. In this case, the Court identified a procedural lapse wherein the petitioner was not impleaded in the transfer petition, thereby denying him the opportunity to oppose the transfer—constituting a violation of natural justice. Furthermore, the absence of issuing the required notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2 before granting the transfer petition was deemed an error apparent on the face of the record, providing a valid ground for review.

3.3 Impact

This judgment reinforces the imperative of procedural compliance in transfer petitions, ensuring that all affected parties are duly informed and given an opportunity to contest. It serves as a precedent mandating adherence to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Supreme Court Rules, thereby safeguarding the principles of natural justice. Additionally, it clarifies that the mere rejection of a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) does not preclude the filing of a separate review petition under the statutory provisions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Review Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court's review jurisdiction allows it to revisit and potentially revise its own judgments and orders. However, this power is not unfettered and is confined to correcting "apparent errors" that are evident on the face of the record. In criminal cases, the grounds for review are particularly stringent to prevent misuse, ensuring that only substantive errors that could lead to a miscarriage of justice are addressed.

4.2 Transfer Petition Procedures

A transfer petition under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. seeks to move the trial of a criminal case from one jurisdiction to another. The procedural norms mandate that before granting such a petition, the court must issue a notice to all parties involved, allowing them to present their arguments against the transfer. Failure to issue this notice, as observed in this case, constitutes a procedural lapse undermining the fairness of the proceedings.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Khare v. Swati Nirkhi underscores the judiciary's unwavering commitment to procedural integrity and the principles of natural justice. By rectifying the procedural oversight in the transfer petition process, the Court not only safeguarded the petitioner's rights but also reinforced the necessity for strict adherence to established legal protocols. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners and courts alike about the paramount importance of procedural compliance in upholding justice and preventing judicial errors.