Analysis of ‘Cause of Action’ in Jurisdictional Transfer Petition

Explore the nuances of legal proceedings in the context of jurisdictional transfer petitions, focusing on the interpretation of ’cause of action’. The judicial analysis of ’cause of action’ plays a crucial role in defining the appropriate court jurisdiction for a case. This blog post sheds light on the significance and application of ’cause of action’ in the recent court’s legal analysis of a transfer petition case.


  • The Transfer Petition was filed seeking transfer of Criminal Case No. 3483 of 2017 from Delhi to Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
  • Respondent No.2, named as a co-accused, supported the Petitioners’ case.
  • Allegations of demanding Rs. 5 Crore were made by Mohan Srivastava to the Complainant.
  • Petitioners cited financial burden and health reasons as grounds for transfer.
  • Complainant faced harassment and threats in connection to the case.
  • Cognisance was taken by Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi, summoning the Accused persons.
  • FIR was filed against Accused including Swaati Nirkhi and others under various sections of IPC.
  • Witnesses and familial relations were mentioned in the Charge Sheet.
  • Multiple cases between parties were pending in Allahabad.
  • Request for transfer to Allahabad was made by Accused for trial convenience.
  • Accused alleged false gang rape accusations against the Complainant.
  • Charges were filed against multiple Accused individuals.
  • Marital relationship details between Swaati Nirkhi and a family member of the Complainant were mentioned.
  • Transfer Petition allowed by ex-parte Order dated 18.5.2018
  • Criminal proceedings transferred to Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad, U.P
  • Complainant in the FIR (Respondent No.4) filed M.A. No 1589 of 2018 for recall of the Order
  • M.A. dismissed on 6.2018
  • Respondent No.4 filed Review Petition (Crl.) No 671 of 2018
  • Court issued Notice in Review Petition on 24.10.2018
  • Hearing conducted in open Court
  • Detailed Judgment dated 28.1.2021 allowed the Review Petition

Also Read: Analysis of Limitation in Arbitration Proceedings


  • Petitioner filed cases in Allahabad against Respondent No.4, but no incriminating evidence was found after multiple investigations.
  • Respondent No.4 serves as Deputy Mayor in Gaya, Bihar and is discharging public functions.
  • Petitioner filed 13 cases in various courts without difficulty previously.
  • Petitioners did not appear in 36 hearings in Allahabad even after the case was transferred there.
  • The Transfer Petition is seen as a tactic to delay proceedings.
  • Section 177 of Cr.P.C mandates inquiry and trial in the locality where the crime was allegedly committed.
  • Allegations made by Respondent No.4 would be better defended in Allahabad.
  • Traveling from Gaya to Delhi for proceedings would be inconvenient for Respondent No.4.
  • Respondent No.3 was not named in the FIR but added in the Charge Sheet based on hearsay.
  • No cause of action occurred in Allahabad, so trial must be in New Delhi.
  • Transfer out of Delhi would affect official work and require travel to Allahabad.
  • 12 official witnesses out of 23 are in New Delhi.
  • Opposition to Transfer Petition as incidents mentioned in the FIR happened in New Delhi.


  • Ordinarily, every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
  • Understanding the concept of ’cause of action’ in criminal cases.
  • The judicially settled meaning of ’cause of action’ as the basis for initiating proceedings against the accused.
  • The definition of ’cause of action’ as the circumstances leading to the infraction of rights or the immediate trigger for legal action.
  • The importance of the locality where the offense is committed in determining jurisdiction in criminal cases.
  • The necessity for proving all material facts constituting the ’cause of action’ in a court of law.
  • The significance of ’cause of action’ in providing the legal basis for a party to seek relief in court.
  • The broader and narrower interpretations of ’cause of action’ in legal contexts.
  • The requirement for some act by the defendant for a cause of action to arise.
  • The inclusive nature of ’cause of action’ comprising all material facts necessary for the legal proceeding.
  • The understanding of ’cause of action’ as the entire set of material facts leading to the legal recourse.
  • The relevance of the alleged ’cause of action’ location in determining jurisdiction in legal matters.
  • Apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial must be reasonable and not based on conjectures or surmises.
  • No universal rule for deciding transfer petitions, each case must be assessed based on its facts.
  • Convenience of a party is a relevant consideration but cannot override other factors like witness availability or the progress of the trial.
  • Travel hindrance for parties if the transfer is allowed is a point to be considered.
  • The alleged apprehensions of the Petitioners and Respondents do not constitute exceptional circumstances for transferring the case.
  • The case was related to a transfer petition from Delhi to Allahabad (Prayagraj).
  • The charge-sheet revealed that the majority of witnesses in the case were not local.
  • This indicates potential delays in the trial due to the need for witnesses to travel, leading to increased expenses for the prosecution.
  • In a similar case, early conclusion of trials was found to be challenging, resulting in prolonged proceedings and increased costs.
  • Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Petitioner requested the continuation of Interim Bail, which was granted by the High Court of Allahabad.


  • Proceedings from FIR No 39 of 2016 transferred to Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, now to be transferred back to Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi.
  • Registry to send copy of order to both courts in Allahabad and Rohini.
  • Parties instructed to appear before Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 461 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi on 15 April, 2021.
  • No costs ordered.
  • Transfer Petition dismissed.
  • Pending Applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • Petitioner can seek interim relief in appropriate New Delhi court after proceedings are transferred.


Case Number: T.P.(Crl.) No.-000262 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *