LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

WHAT DID THE Court SAY?

In Yogesh Upadhyay vs Atlanta Limited, the Supreme Court of India has noted that Section 406 CrPC empowers the courts to transfer cheque cases from one state to another.

In a Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, it was noted that despite the non obstante clause u/s 142(1) of the NI Act, the power of Courts to transfer criminal cases u/s 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact for offences u/s 138 NIA to meet the ends of justice.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? 

In this case, a total of four out of the six cases were filed by a company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi while two such cases are still pending before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra. 

The Petitioner accused had approached the Supreme Court to seek transfer of two cases from Nagpur Court to Dwarka Courts.

The counsel for the respondent contended that it would not be permissible for the Court to transfer the said complaint cases as the non-obstante clause u/s 142(1) NIA would override Section 406 Cr.P.C.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION: 

The Ld. Court took reliance on the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another and held that u/s 142(2) the phrase ‘shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction……’ is contextual to the ratio of the Dashrath case.

It was also observed by the Court that the non-obstante clause u/s 142(2) has to be understood separately and should not be used for the interpretation of Section 406 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the transfer petition was allowed

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below! 

"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  112  Report



Comments
img