REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.377 OF 2006

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. The  present  petition  is  filed  under  Section  406  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1973  for  transfer  of  multiple  cases  by  way  of  

complaints/FIRs for and against the Petitioner Shree Baidyanath Ayurved  

Bhawan Ltd. to the Delhi High Court or any other High Court or courts  

subordinate  to such High Court  from the Punjab & Haryana High Court  

and/or Courts subordinate thereto.

2. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to  

as  ‘the  company’  for  the  sake  of  brevity)  is  a  company  registered  and  

incorporated  under  the  Indian  Companies  Act,  1956.   It  manufactures  

Ayurvedic  medicines.   For  the  purpose  of  distribution  of  its  products,  it  

engages Carrying and Forwarding Agents to receive goods from it, store and  

sell them to the stockists.

3. The  company  appointed  M/s.  S.  Bhatia  Enterprises,  Ludhiana  

(Respondent No.5 herein) (for short, ‘the firm’) of which Praveen Bhatia,  

Ramkishan Bhatia, Ashwani Bhatia and Promila Bhatia are partners.   

The  agreement  between  the  parties  incorporating  the  terms  and  

conditions  of  Carrying  and  Forwarding  Agency  contained  an  arbitration  

clause.

4. Between 2000 and 2001, Respondent No.5 allegedly made fraudulent  

credits  amounting  to  Rs.4,00,000/-  in  the  account  of  M/s.  Dhanwantri  

Ayurvedic Store, Hambram, said to be a bogus firm.    However, subsequent  

audit reports of the company allegedly continued to show fraudulent credit  

entries which were said to be detected by Company’s Account Manager. The  

respondents were warned in respect thereof.   

2

5. On or about 18.10.2001, allegedly, one of the respondents, namely,  

the Respondent No.5, along with some other persons assaulted Company’s  

Account Manager, namely, T.S. Thakur and made a threat on his life, and  

also snatched audit reports and other documents from him.   The matter was  

reported to the Police Station,  Kailash Chowk, Ludhiana vide FIR No.29  

under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 382, 323 and 120B of the  

Indian Penal Code.  The police filed a closure report on the premise that the  

accused no longer has any interest in M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises.  However,  

at  the instance of the petitioner,  a competent  court  directed the police to  

make investigation.  No charge-sheet in the said case is said to have been  

filed as yet.  

6. A report of the company dated 2.11.2001 allegedly revealed that the  

respondent  had  embezzled  the  goods  and  sale  proceeds  amounting  to  

Rs.2.36 crores.  On 13.11.2001, an FIR being No.303 came to be registered  

at Jhansi against the respondents.  However, the said FIR was transferred  

from Jhansi to Ludhiana by an order dated 29.5.2002 of the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana.

7. Soon thereafter, an FIR being No.276 was filed against the petitioners  

under  Sections 452,  383,  384,  323 and 342 of  the  Indian Penal  Code in  

3

Ludhiana on a complaint being made by the respondents alleging forcible  

trespass into their godown.

8. Subsequently,  the  respondents  filed  four  different  petitions  [CMM  

No.18962  of  2003,  18958  of  2003,  14773  of  2003  and  39666  of  2003]  

seeking quashing of FIR No.303.  Respondents also filed CMM No.19961of  

2003 seeking the stay of arrest in any future case filed against them by the  

petitioners.

9. On or about 15.5.2003, Respondents again filed CM No.21830M of  

2003 asking for registration of FIR against the petitioners herein for having  

secretly removed the stocks from the firm’s godown.   

10. Petitioners thereafter filed CM No.23513 of 2003 under Section 482  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the State to have the  

investigation of all the cases pending between the parties to be conducted by  

an independent agency outside the State of Punjab.

11. Indisputably, the parties have filed a large number of criminal cases  

against each other.  The company filed as many as nine criminal cases which  

are pending in different courts of Punjab and Haryana.  The firm also filed  

4

six criminal cases against the company and/or its officers which are pending  

in the courts of CJM, Chandigarh and several courts at Ludhiana.   

12. It is submitted by the petitioner that the present cases arise out of or in  

relation to a single transaction. It is further submitted that at present there are  

sixteen  criminal  cases  filed  by  the  Respondent  against  the  petitioner  in  

various courts in the State of Punjab. In addition, the petitioner has also filed  

four criminal cases against Respondents. There are ten FIRs pending against  

the parties and investigation in six of the cases has resulted in charge sheet  

being filed against the parties.  

13. The petitioner also prayed for transfer of all criminal cases pending in  

various courts of Punjab including the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  

Chandigarh between the parties, which may not be in the knowledge of the  

petitioner and hence also may not be mentioned in this transfer petition.

14. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellant,  would  contend  that  as  all  the  cases  arise  out  of  the  same  

transaction, the interest of justice would be subserved if all the matters are  

clubbed  together  in  order  to  avoid  multiplicity  of  proceedings.   The  

5

proceedings in various courts would show that the company and its officers  

have unfairly been treated.

15. Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on  

the other hand, would urge that for transfer of a criminal case, there must be  

a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice would  

not be done which the petitioners have failed to do.   

16. Some of the cases, namely, cases arising out of FIR Nos.29, 276 and  

303  having  been  transferred  from  Ludhiana  and  Jhansi  to  the  Court  of  

Chandigarh, it would, in our opinion, be inappropriate to transfer all criminal  

cases to Jhansi.   

Indisputably, at the time of filing of the transfer application, in some  

of the matters investigations were pending.  Some of the criminal cases have  

been filed in the Ludhiana Courts by the company itself.  Indisputably, it has  

an office at Ludhiana.   

17. Although Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers  

this Court to transfer a criminal case from one Court situated in one State to  

another  situated in another  State  but  indisputably  the  convenience of  the  

6

parties  including  the  witnesses  to  be  produced  at  the  trial  is  a  relevant  

consideration therefor.   

In  Abdul Nazar Madani v.  State of Tamil  Nadu & Anr.  [(2000) 6  

SCC 204], this Court has categorically held that before an order of transfer is  

effected,  the convenience not  only of  the petitioner but  also prosecution,  

other  accused  and  witnesses  including  the  larger  interest  of  the  society  

should also be taken into consideration.   

18. It  is  true that some apprehensions have been expressed that  justice  

may  not  be  done  to  the  company  but  keeping  in  view  the  facts  and  

circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that its apprehension does  

not appear to be a reasonable one.  We have no doubt in our mind that all the  

Courts concerned would act impartially and the Company and its Directors  

and Officers who are facing trial before the courts concerned would be dealt  

with very fairly.   

19. We would, however, request the District Judges of Chandigarh and  

Ludhiana to consider the desirability of transferring all the criminal matters  

(as far as practicable and legally permissible) to one court so as to enable  

them to be disposed of  one after  the other.   We are,  furthermore,  of the  

7

opinion  that  if  and  when  applications  for  dispensation  of  personal  

appearance are filed by the accused, the same shall  be considered by the  

courts concerned on their own merits.

20 The transfer petition, therefore, is dismissed with the aforementioned  

directions/observations.

..…………………………..…J.     [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.  [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi; August 4, 2009

8