Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Can't Transfer Cases Pending Before Additional CMM Under Section 410 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising power under Section 410 CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot transfer two cases pending before two different courts presided by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to one court presided by the same rank judicial officer. A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by M/s...
The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising power under Section 410 CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot transfer two cases pending before two different courts presided by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to one court presided by the same rank judicial officer.
A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by M/s RadicaL Works Pvt Ltd and quashed the order dated 13-01-2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by which it transferred CC No.17424/2020 on the file of XXVIII Additional Chief 3 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and CC No.12667/2021 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, were transferred to the Court of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law.
The petitioners had argued that the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. could not have transferred a pending case in a Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the Court of another Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He submits that said power is vested only with the jurisdictional Court of Sessions Judge under Section 408 of Cr.P.C.
Reliance was placed on Madhya Pradesh High court judgment in the case of A. K. Singh, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur vs. Virendra Kumar Jain, Advocate - 2001 (4) M.P.L.J. 324 and also on the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in 4 the case of Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and Another in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.4884/2015 disposed of on 08.10.2015.
Respondents relying on judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Mahfooskhan Mehboob Sheikh vs. R. J. Parakh - LAWS(BOM)- 1979- 11-8, wherein it has been held that the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has power to transfer pending case from the Court of one Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to another Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, argued that, “The power of withdrawal under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. includes the power to transfer.”
The bench noted Section 408 of Cr.P.C. provides for power of the Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. Sections 409 and 410 of Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for withdrawal of the cases/appeals.
Referring to the case laws cited by the petitioner, the bench held, “The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and High Court of Gujarat in the case of A. K. Singh (supra) and Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma (supra) have laid down the correct position of law and I am in complete agreement with the same.”
It added, “Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in exercise of his power under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. could not have passed the order impugned.”
Following which it allowed the petition and set aside the order.
Appearance: Advocate Jayasham Jayasimha Rao for Petitioner.
Advocate Sarvana S for Advocate Satyanarayana S Chalke for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Case Title: M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G
Case No: CRL.P.NO. 1291/2023