Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a petition seeking transfer of a pending criminal defamation complaint from the court of the current trial Judge at Panchkula, holding that the applicant failed to show any credible basis for apprehending bias. The accused had sought transfer on allegations that the Presiding Officer was acting in concert with the complainant and was conducting proceedings in a manner perceived as prejudicial. The Court cautioned that an adverse order, even if later overturned, does not by itself indicate prejudice, and noted that litigants often mistake unfavourable directions for bias, prompting unmerited transfer pleas that disrupt judicial continuity. Costs of ₹50,000 were imposed with specified deposit directions.

The proceedings arose from a private criminal complaint alleging defamation under Section 500 IPC, instituted in 2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula. The complainant alleged circulation of false and misleading communications intended to harm reputation within an organisational body after internal disputes. The accused persons were summoned and granted bail, following which the trial continued.

Also Read: State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Posts Through Due Process; Legitimate Expectation Applies: Supreme Court

During pendency, one accused filed an application before the Sessions Judge under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 408 Cr.P.C.), seeking transfer of the complaint from the existing Magistrate on grounds of age, health, distance, inconvenience, and apprehension of bias. Allegations were also made suggesting improper conduct by the Presiding Officer and influence exercised by the complainant.

The Sessions Judge dismissed the transfer application, noting absence of sufficient grounds and observing that mere apprehension was inadequate for transfer. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Sections 528 and 447 BNSS, challenging the refusal to transfer and reiterating claims of prejudice, harassment, and denial of a fair trial. The State took a neutral position, while the complainant opposed the petition as dilatory and unsupported by material.

The Court observed that “the power of transfer is indubitably discretionary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.” It recorded that “transfer of proceedings cannot be ordered on the basis of mere apprehension, surmises or dissatisfaction of a party with the manner in which the trial is proceeding.”

While considering the statutory framework, the Court stated that “the legislature has anchored the Sessions Court’s power of transfer of a criminal case upon the singular, broad spectrum criterion of being ‘expedient for the ends of justice’.” It noted that such power “is not an administrative routine but a discretionary judicial function that remains dormant unless the facts of the case demonstrably warrant such an intervention.”

On allegations of bias, the Court observed that "Litigants often misinterpret an adverse or unfavourable judicial order as an indication of inherent bias, leading to a proliferation of unfounded transfer applications that threaten the very stability of the legal process. It must be underscored that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case."

Addressing imputations against the trial court and counsel, the Court observed that “to cast aspersions on or besmirch judicial work due to an order unacceptable to a litigant is plainly subterfuge.” It cautioned that if such pleas were accepted, “it will well neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process.”

The Court further observed that “judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality,” and that an unfavourable order “does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice.” Stating restraint, it recorded that “the power of transfer is never reduced to a tool for forum shopping but is reserved for cases where the impartiality of the trial is genuinely imperiled.”

The Court directed that “the petition in hand; seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 seeking transfer of complaint bearing No. COMI/84/2019 titled as Tarsem Kumar Ruby vs. D.C. Bansal and another from the Court of current Presiding Judicial Magistrate to another Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula; is dismissed.”

“The petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.50,000/-,” and specified that “out of which Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited by him with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula within two weeks from today and remaining Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Panchkula to be remitted to learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant before the trial Court within two weeks from today.”

Also Read: Advocate Accused Of Seeking ₹30 Lakh Bribe To Influence Judicial Officer In Divorce Case Denied Bail: Punjab And Haryana High Court

“In case, the said costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the CJM, Panchkula is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula who shall have such costs recovered from the petitioner including but not limited to as arrears of land revenue. Upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula shall have the same submitted to CJM, Panchkula, for further remittance thereof to the quarter(s) concerned,” and that “a compliance report be sent by CJM, Panchkula as also Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to this Court accordingly.”

“Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case,” and “the trial Court shall proceed further expeditiously, in accordance with law, without being influenced with them. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant

Case Title: Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:013845
Case Number: CRM-M-72601-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel