Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran on January 6 set aside a Telangana High Court order that had, on an ex parte plea by the husband, shifted a criminal case arising from the wife’s complaint from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.   The Court said allegations of bias cannot be sustained solely because a litigant’s relatives hold official positions such as police personnel or court staff.  Allowing the wife’s appeal, it directed that the proceedings be restored if required and transferred back to Sangareddy within a month, with appearance fixed for February 16, 2026. 

The dispute arose from criminal proceedings initiated by a wife against her husband, which were pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sangareddy. On an application filed by the husband, the High Court ordered transfer of the case to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The wife, though impleaded as a respondent in the transfer proceedings, did not appear, and the transfer order was passed ex parte.

Also Read: Single FIR Permissible In Large-Scale Cheating Conspiracy Cases; Multiple Complaints Can Be Treated As Statements: Supreme Court

The husband sought transfer on allegations of bias, asserting that the wife’s relatives were employed as a Head Constable in the local police station and as court staff in the District Court at Sangareddy, allegedly influencing the police and court machinery. The wife contested the transfer, contending that the allegations of bias were unfounded and that the order ignored her difficulties in prosecuting the case while caring for two children.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, reference was made to prior matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings, compromise proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a divorce decree obtained by the husband. These facts were noted only to understand the background, with the core issue confined to the legality and justification of the transfer order.

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which the transfer order had been passed and the grounds on which bias was alleged. The Court recorded that “we do not think that the High Court appreciated the issue properly, especially since the learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of hearing the wife.”

On the allegation of bias, the Court stated that “it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge.” It further observed that “we cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself.”

The Bench also took note of the factual clarification placed on record that “the lady who was working as Junior Assistant has already been transferred.”

Addressing the husband’s apprehension regarding safety, the Court observed that “the second respondent who is an accused in the proceedings could seek for appearance through a counsel or by video conferencing, during the pendency of the case.” It added that if personal presence was required, “he could file an application for providing sufficient protection to appear before the Court which shall be favourably considered by the Magistrate.”

The Court expressly clarified the limited scope of its observations, recording that “the observations made in the judgment are not on the merits of the case but are only in adjudication of the transfer petition and would not govern the final adjudication of the matter.”

Also Read: Marital Discord Threatening Woman’s Mental Health Can Justify Abortion Under MTP Act; Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court held that: “We are of the opinion that the order of the High Court cannot at all be sustained, especially on the grounds raised of bias which we find to be inconsequential. If transfer has been effected to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, the case registered on transfer of C.C. No.136 of 2023 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy shall immediately be transferred back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, if the matter is still pending and if it has been closed on any grounds, including the default of the complainant to appear before the transferred-Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall restore the proceedings and transfer it back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, without any fail.”

“The observations made in the judgment are not on the merits of the case but are only in adjudication of the transfer petition. The transfer as above shall be carried out within a month. The parties shall appear before the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy on 16.02.2026, which appearance shall be permitted even through counsel.”

Case Title: Prasanna Kasini v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 30
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran