Long-pending criminal proceedings are not transferred absent sufficient grounds; video-conferencing may facilitate accused’s appearance.

The petitioner, an accused in G.R. Case No. 441 of 2014, arising out of Gondia P.S. Case No. 42 of 2014 and pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, sought transfer of the proceeding to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.

He contended that the Dhenkanal Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, that his co-accused mother, aged approximately 71 years, suffered from age-related ailments and resided with him at Bhadrak, and that travelling approximately 250 kilometres to Dhenkanal caused hardship.

It was further submitted that the informant also resided and worked at Bhadrak, that no part of the cause of action arose at Dhenkanal, and that the petitioner faced threats to his life from the informant’s brothers and their alleged associates.

The charge-sheet had been submitted in 2016, and although 14 prosecution witnesses were cited, only two had been examined by the time of hearing.

The Court noted that no FIR or other material had been produced to substantiate the alleged threat, and that the petitioner’s mother had not joined the transfer request despite being arrayed as a co-accused.

The criminal case had remained pending since 2014.

Whether the pending criminal proceeding should be transferred from the Court of the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, on the grounds of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction, inconvenience, the petitioner’s mother’s age and illness, and alleged threats to the petitioner’s safety?

Whether, notwithstanding refusal of transfer, appropriate directions should be issued to expedite the trial and permit the petitioner and his co-accused mother to appear through video conferencing where physical attendance causes difficulty?

The Court applied the discretionary principles governing transfer of criminal proceedings, under which transfer is not granted merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, personal inconvenience, or generalized apprehension, particularly where the proceeding has substantially progressed before the existing court.

The Court also applied the principle that prolonged pendency of a criminal case warrants directions for expeditious disposal, subject to there being no legal impediment.

In addition, it relied on the procedural facility of appearance through video conferencing in accordance with the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, while preserving the trial court’s power to require physical presence for material stages such as examination of the accused, arguments, and pronouncement of judgment.

The Court declined transfer because the petitioner’s allegations were insufficiently substantiated.

In particular, no FIR or supporting material was produced regarding the alleged threat to life, and the petitioner’s mother, whose age and illness formed a central ground for transfer, had not herself joined the petition.

The Court also considered that the case had been pending since 2014 and that two prosecution witnesses had already been examined; transferring it at that stage would not be justified merely on the grounds pleaded by the petitioner.

However, recognising the excessive delay and the practical difficulty faced by the petitioner and his elderly mother, the Court balanced the refusal of transfer with directions for early disposal and consideration of video-conferencing appearances.

The S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and endeavour to conclude it preferably by the end of June 2027, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The Court further requested the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, to permit the petitioner and his approximately 71-year-old co-accused mother to appear through video conferencing on dates where physical attendance posed difficulty, in accordance with the 2020 Video Conferencing Rules.

Their physical presence could nevertheless be required for accused examination, arguments, pronouncement of judgment, or any other stage so directed by the trial court.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be urgently communicated to the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal.