Delhi High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea, Says Judge’s Refusal to Grant Adjournment or Consolidate Connected Complaints Is Not Ground for Shifting Cheque-Bounce Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a plea to shift three cheque-bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act from the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, South District, Saket. The Court held that a judge’s refusal to grant adjournments or to consolidate connected complaints does not amount to bias warranting a transfer. Stressing that scheduling decisions are part of case management and cannot, without evidence of mala fides, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of partiality, the Bench directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 as costs to the complainant.
The dispute arose from three complaints filed by the respondent, proprietor of a trading concern, against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheques issued towards payment obligations. The complaints were being heard together before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at the Saket Court Complex in New Delhi.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournments on multiple occasions. On one hearing, an adjournment was allowed on payment of costs, while on another occasion a higher cost was imposed. Cross-examination of the complainant was partly conducted on a later date, but one of the complaints remained pending for evidence due to shortage of time. The petitioner alleged that the trial court did not properly record certain answers during cross-examination and intervened in a manner that influenced the witness.
On a subsequent date, the petitioner’s counsel was not present at the first call, and the trial court declined a request for a pass-over and closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine in one of the complaints. This order was later set aside by the Sessions Court, which granted another opportunity for cross-examination.
Later, despite an earlier joint scheduling for hearing all three complaints together, the trial court advanced the hearing in two matters for final arguments. The petitioner sought adjournment on medical grounds and requested consolidation with the third matter, but the request was declined. Alleging bias and lack of impartiality by the presiding judge, the petitioner sought transfer of all three complaints to another court under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer plea.
Justice Sanjeev Narula examined the detailed reasoning of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, who had rejected the transfer request. The order noted that the petitioner had not moved any formal application before the trial court regarding the change of hearing date. The lower court found that “only giving a shorter date for the final argument cases will not amount to losing the faith in the court as it is a general practice that the matter listed for final arguments are given shorter date than the matter fixed for evidence.” It further stated that “even from the ordersheets filed by the petitioner, it is not clear that the date of 04.07.2025 was given earlier and later on the date was changed to 26.04.2025.”
Justice Narula recorded that “the mere fact that the Trial Court advanced the date for final arguments does not, by itself, indicate any element of bias or prejudice in the conduct of proceedings.” He added that “scheduling is an aspect of case management, and unless shown to be actuated by mala fides, it cannot give rise to a reasonable apprehension of partiality.” The Court stated that transfer powers under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are extraordinary and must be exercised with restraint.
The Court cited the judgement in Directorate of Enforcement v. Ajay S. Mittal (2024 SCC OnLine Del 4047) to illustrate the adverse implications of unfounded transfer pleas. It quoted: “Demoralizing Effect of Such Transfer Orders… The justice system relies on the principle that judges are impartial arbiters, and any deviation from this principle must be based on clear, substantiated concerns, not mere suspicion or personal preference.” The Court recorded that frivolous transfer applications could encourage “court hunting” and “seriously prejudice the judge and demoralize the entire judiciary.”
Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Review of Patent Bid for Zero-Liquid-Discharge Recovery Process
Justice Narula observed that the petitioner’s allegations were speculative and unsupported by any substantial evidence. He wrote that “conflating routine case-management decisions with prejudice or bias on part of the Presiding Officer undermines the high threshold required to justify a transfer.”
The order stated: “For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, along with all pending applications.” The Court also directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent within three weeks from the date of the order.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Suman Raj, and Mr. Foozan Shah, Advocates.
Case Title: Gaurav Malhotra v. Umesh Chand Jain (Proprietor of M/s Chaman Lal Umesh Chand Jain)
Case Number: TR.P.(CRL.) 71/2025, CRL.M.A. 26224-26225/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
