Delhi High Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate Cannot Transfer Case From One Court To Another On Application Moved Or Suo Motu U/S 450 BNSS
The Delhi High Court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court to another unless an Order is passed by the High Court under Section 10(2) BNSS.
The Delhi High Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court to another upon an Application moved or suo motu, as per Section 450 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)/Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Court held thus in a Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS against an Order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed, “… under Section 410 Cr.PC. and Section 450 BNSS the power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate is only administrative in nature. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot “transfer” a case from one Court or another upon an application being moved or suo moto.”
The Bench further held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot exercise the administrative power of transfer of case from one Court to another within its jurisdiction unless an Order is passed by the High Court under Section 10(2) of BNSS.
Advocate Jaipal Singh represented the Petitioner while APP Hemant Mehta and Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Kanhaiya Singhal represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent No. 2 was the father-in-law of the Petitioner and they were locked in several litigations pertaining to matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s son. The Petition before the High Court was filed predominantly on the ground that under Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no power to transfer a case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in its jurisdiction.
The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 19(3) of CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction only to the extent of distribution of business among the Metropolitan Magistrate. It was also submitted that the ACMM did not even issue notice before passing the impugned Order. The question involved in this case was relating to the power of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relating to transfer of case from one Court of Metropolitan Magistrate to another Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The basic question is whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate has the power to transfer the case from one Court to another Court on an application being moved or on its own.”
The Court was of the view that since the legislature in its own wisdom has conferred the power of the transfer only to Supreme Court, High Courts, and the Sessions Court, it cannot be given by way of inference to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
“The law of interpretation does not provide interpretation of any provision which in any manner contravenes the intention of the legislature. The legislature could have specifically given the power of transfer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate if it would have considered it proper to do so”, it further said.
The Court added that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not even consider it necessary to issue the notice before passing the impugned Order.
“… the Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to move a proper application before Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge under Section 448 BNSS, 2023 for transfer of case from one Court to another. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge may exercise the jurisdiction without being influenced by the order of this Court in accordance with law”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and directed that the copy of its Judgment be sent to the Registrar General for appropriate action and circulation of copy to the Judicial Officers subject to the directions of the Chief Justice.
Cause Title- Sudesh Chhikara v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1693)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Jaipal Singh
Respondents: APP Hemant Mehta, Amicus Curiae Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocates Baljit Singh, Ujwal Ghai, Pulkit Jolly, and Tamanna Agarwal.
