- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr Ram Chander Singh Sagar And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns a petition presented to the Supreme Court seeking a transfer order under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted, based on the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu, that there was no case pending before any court at that stage; the matter remained at the investigatory stage. The petition appears to have been prompted by directions requiring the petitioners to appear before a far-off court during investigation, and the petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly seeking transfer.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Supreme Court to transfer an investigation from one police station to another merely because a first information or remand report has been forwarded to a court.
- Whether a transfer petition under Section 406 is maintainable when no case is pending before any court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by explaining the scope of Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: it confers power on the Supreme Court to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court (or a court subordinate to one High Court) to another High Court (or a court subordinate thereto). The Court emphasized that this statutory power does not extend to transferring investigations between police stations across the country, even if the first information or a remand report has been forwarded to a court.
The Court characterized the application as stemming from a misconception about the scope of Section 406. A key factor in the Court's analysis was the State of Tamil Nadu's counter affidavit, which clarified that no case was pending before any court. In light of this, the Court concluded that no action could be taken under Section 406 and the petition had to fail.
Addressing the petitioners' practical grievance—being directed to appear before a far-off court during the investigatory stage—the Court indicated that the appropriate course was to move the court that had directed appearance for suitable relief to avoid hardship (such as long travel or harassment through process). The Court noted that other remedies might exist if justice were denied, but not under Section 406. It further observed that if the second petitioner was indeed ailing, bringing that fact to the notice of the concerned court would likely result in appropriate orders, provided the representation was truthful. The Court reiterated that judicial process should advance justice and not harass parties.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, holding that Section 406 does not empower the Court to transfer investigations and that, in any event, no case was pending before any court.
The direct consequence is that no transfer was ordered. The petitioners were left to seek appropriate relief from the court that directed their appearance during the investigation. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications beyond clarifying, on the stated facts, the limited scope of Section 406 in relation to investigatory transfers, and it does not set out any new precedent beyond the reasoning expressed in this order.
V.R Krishna Iyer, J.— The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court with power under Section 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. But, it does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country simply because the first information or a remand report is for warded to a Court. The application before us stems from a misconception about the scope of Section 406. There is as yet no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss this petition.
2. If the petitioners are being directed to appear in a far-off court during investigatory stage it is for them to move that court for appropriate orders so that they may not be tormented by long travel or otherwise teased by judicial process. If justice is denied there are other redresses, not under Section 406, though it is unfortunate that the petitioners have not chosen to move that court to be absolved from appearance until necessitated by the circumstances or the progress of the investigation. To come to this Court directly seeking an order of transfer is travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that if the second petitioner is ailing, as is represented, and this fact is brought to the notice of the Court which has directed her appearance, just orders will be passed in case there is veracity behind the representation. We need hardly say courts should use their processes to the purpose of advancing justice, not to harass parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for transfer is concerned. there is no merit we can see and so we dismiss it.
Alert