Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside impugned order dated 08-08-2025, whereby the petitioner’s application to transfer his case to another court was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel J., stated that a transfer application cannot be allowed upon a mere asking or the subjective whims or imaginary anxieties of a litigant. The applicant must present clear and reasonable grounds, supported by solid evidence, showing a genuine risk to the fairness of the trial. The Court stated that in the present case, the petitioner failed to place on record any cogent material to establish any likelihood of bias or prejudice, and the allegations were also general in nature. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition seeking to set aside the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.
Background
In the present case, on 08-08-2024, a criminal complaint was filed under Section 500 of Penal Code, 1860 by the complainant before the judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, Haryana alleging that the petitioner, an 89 year old businessman, a former rival for the position of District Governor in Rotary International, spread defamatory material to harm his reputation after losing the election. The petitioner filed a transfer petition seeking to transfer his case to another court and contended that the trial is oppressive due to his age, health issues, and the long-distance travel required to attend hearings. He claims that the trial has been delayed and that the presiding officer is biased, as he was influenced by the complainant and failed to address repeated delays in the proceedings.
The Sessions Judge dismissed the transfer application, stating that the petitioner’s apprehension of unfair treatment was not sufficient grounds for transfer. The petitioner had filed the present petition, challenging this order on the ground that the refusal to transfer violates his fundamental rights, causing undue mental, physical, and financial distress, and argues that the trial has been pending for over six years.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that a fair trial is the foundation of the justice system. It is not just a rule written in law but a basic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Protecting this right is so important that no effort or cost is considered too much. Further, the Court explained that a fair trial depends on two essential principles: first, both sides must be given a chance to be heard (audi alteram partem), and second, the decision-making process must be completely free from bias, prejudice, or even the appearance of unfairness. The credibility of the justice system lies not only in enforcing laws, but also in ensuring that the process itself is fair. Justice must not only be free from bias but must also be seen by everyone as free from bias.
Acknowledging the fact that right to an impartial trial is sacrosanct, the Court noted the emerging trend of weaponizing the transfer machinery to undermine judicial independence. The Court stated that litigants often mistake an unfavorable order as proof of bias. This misunderstanding leads to a flood of unfounded transfer requests, which in turn threatens the stability and smooth functioning of the legal process. However, a Trial Judge must focus on performing his duty and not give in to pressure from litigants who make careless allegations.
Further, the Court stated that a transfer application cannot be allowed upon a mere asking or the subjective whims or imaginary anxieties of a litigant. The applicant must bring forth reasonable and non-illusory grounds, substantiated by cogent material, demonstrating a legitimate threat to the purity of the trial. The Court stated that to prevent the abuse of process and the practice of forum shopping, the Sessions Court must strictly enforce the provisions of Section 408(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 448(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, imposing costs on any party preferring frivolous or vexatious transfer application.
The Court stated that judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality, thus merely passing an unfavorable order, or even an order subsequently set aside by a superior Court, does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice. Further, no universal guidelines or parameters can possibly be enumerated for exercise of power of transfer jurisdiction of the Sessions Court as every case has its own unique factual conspectus.
The Court stated that the power of transfer is indubitably discretionary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the petitioner failed to place on record any cogent material to establish any likelihood of bias or prejudice, and the allegations were also general in nature. The Court stated that the mere fact that the complaint has been pending since 2019 is not enough on its own to justify a transfer, especially when the delay cannot be blamed only on the complainant or the trial court.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition seeking to set aside the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner. Out of this, Rs. 25,000 must be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, and the remaining Rs. 25,000 must be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, which is to be remitted to the complainant’s counsel in the trial court.
[Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana , CRM-M 72601 of2025, decided on 30-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Adv.; Pratham Sethi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Rohit Kaushik, Adv.; Mahima Yashpal Singla,Sr. DAG,Haryana.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
