SC Transfers 498A Case from Karnataka to Delhi

Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent case (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 628 of 2025), delivered on 24 September 2025, has once again underlined its commitment to ensuring speedy trials and effective justice. In this case, the husband, facing trial under Section 498A IPC and allied provisions, sought transfer of the criminal proceedings from Bangalore to Delhi. The Court not only allowed the transfer but also directed that the trial be concluded within six months. This judgment is significant as it highlights the Court’s constitutional role under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution in safeguarding fair trial rights and preventing undue harassment caused by long-pending matrimonial litigation.

Proceedings of the Case:
The proceedings arose out of an FIR (Crime Case No. 312/2006) under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 IPC filed by the wife against her husband in Bangalore. For nearly 19 years since its institution, the case saw no meaningful progress in trial. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in January 2025, had quashed proceedings against the husband’s family members. The marriage of the parties itself had been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 25 April 2025 on the ground of cruelty. Importantly, both the complainant-wife and her family were residing in Delhi, and her examination-in-chief had been recorded as far back as 2014, but she had not presented herself for cross-examination thereafter. It was in this backdrop that the petitioner sought transfer of the trial to Delhi for expeditious disposal.

The Supreme Court’s Order:
The Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria allowed the transfer petition with the following directions:

1. Transfer of Proceedings: Criminal Case No. 22068/2008 pending before the XXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi.
   
   

2. Expeditious Trial: Considering that the FIR was registered as far back as 2006, the Court directed the transferee court to expedite the proceedings and make all efforts to conclude the trial within six months of receiving the records.
   
   

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Recognition of Long-Delayed Trials as a Denial of Justice: The Court acknowledged that a case lingering for almost two decades without progress amounted to denial of justice. The direction for time-bound disposal is consistent with the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
   
   

2. Convenience of Parties as a Ground for Transfer: Traditionally, the Supreme Court considers the convenience of the wife in matrimonial matters when deciding transfer petitions. However, in this case, since the wife and her family were residing in Delhi and had themselves not pursued the matter diligently, the Court found merit in transferring the case to Delhi at the husband’s request.
   
   

3. Balancing Rights under Article 21: A speedy trial is a facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. By directing the transfer and fixing a six-month timeline, the Court reinforced the constitutional mandate of fair and expeditious proceedings.
   
   

4. Judicial Efficiency in Matrimonial Litigation: This ruling will have far-reaching implications for similar cases where criminal trials arising from matrimonial disputes remain pending for decades. It sets a precedent that the Supreme Court may intervene to consolidate proceedings in one jurisdiction and fast-track their conclusion.
   
   

Conclusion:
This judgment is a landmark step in reaffirming the Supreme Court’s role as the sentinel of justice in matrimonial and criminal proceedings. By transferring the case and ensuring a time-bound trial, the Court has sent a clear message that pendency cannot be allowed to frustrate justice. The decision underscores that the power to transfer under the Supreme Court’s criminal jurisdiction is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive tool to protect the fundamental rights of litigants and prevent abuse of the judicial process. Ultimately, this ruling strengthens the principle that the ends of justice must prevail over technicalities of jurisdiction and prolonged litigation.

*****By: Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate, Supreme Court of India