Facts in Brief In this case, transfer of a Criminal Trial from the Court at Salem (Tamil Nadu) to Patiala House Court, New Delhi, was sought by the Petitioner. A private complaint was filed before a Magistrate in respect of illegal use of a Trademark and in the said Criminal Trial, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, and the matter was fixed for appearance of the accused. Some civil suits were also filed in the said trademark dispute matter by the Respondents and the same were transferred by the Supreme Court from Salem to Delhi in the year 2018. Provision of Law Involved 406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney- General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney- General of India or the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Grounds of the Petitioner 1. Point involved in the Criminal Case is similar to one in the Civil Suits that are now being contested under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. 2. Proceedings in Salem are conducted in Tamil language that the Petitioner does not understand. 3. It would be more convenient for both the parties if the criminal matter is also heard in Delhi. 4. There is a distance of 2000 km from Salem to Petitioner’s place of residence at Indore (MP) and there is no direct connectivity between two places. 5. The case of Mridum M. Damle v. CBI, (2012) 5 SCC 706, was also cited to buttress the submission that when a number of witnesses are gravely inconvenienced due to large distance between their place of residence and the place of trial, then there could be deleterious effects on the conduct of the trial and in such cases, a criminal case may be transferred. 6. Respondents have influence in Salem and there is apprehension that the Petitioner may not a fair Trial at Salem. Grounds of the Respondents 1. There is delay by the Petitioner in approaching the Supreme Court as the Trial that commenced in the year 2018 has already reached the stage of leading of evidence. 2. Personal appearance of the Petitioner in the Criminal Trial has been dispensed with by the Trial Court at Salem. 3. A criminal case cannot be equated and mixed with a civil case. And there is no bar in law that civil and criminal proceedings cannot go on simultaneously. 4. The case of Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 845, was cited to argue that mere apprehension that the Petitioner would not get a fair trial at Salem is not enough and he must bring credible evidence or material to support his contention. No such material or evidence has been brought by the Petitioner in the present case. Held by the Court 1. Even if it is conceded that the civil cases would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case, yet the same would not justify the transfer. And two different judicial fora are hearing the civil and criminal cases respectively. 2. Substantial progress has been made in the criminal case. 3. The apprehensions and allegations of the Petitioner do not show any unjust in