Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan has dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of a pending criminal case to another jurisdiction. The Court held that there was no material on record to suggest bias or unfair conduct on the part of the trial court and directed the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The Bench further ordered that the case be disposed of expeditiously within six months from the receipt of the order. The Court clarified that mere apprehension without substantiating material could not be a valid ground for transfer.

The matter arose from a private complaint initiated under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, a medical practitioner and sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Villupuram Constituency, had borrowed a total sum of Rs.25 crores in March 2021 to meet election-related expenses. To discharge this alleged liability, five post-dated cheques, each valued at Rs.50 lakhs, were issued by the respondent. When presented for encashment, one cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement "insufficient funds" while the other four cheques were returned with the remark "payment stopped by the drawer."

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Double Standards | Parties Who Consented To Arbitration Estopped From Opposing Award On Ground Of Non-Arbitrability

Following the dishonour, the petitioner issued a statutory notice as mandated under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently, a complaint was filed and taken on file as S.T.C.No.796 of 2024 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram. The proceedings before this Magistrate became the subject matter of the transfer petition.

The petitioner sought transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate Court at Puducherry Union Territory or to any other competent court outside Villupuram District. The transfer petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The principal ground raised by the petitioner was that the respondent, being a sitting MLA and District Secretary of the ruling political party, wielded considerable political influence in Villupuram District. It was alleged that such influence might affect the fairness of the trial.

In support of the plea, the petitioner contended that the trial court had allowed the withdrawal of a discharge petition filed by the respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, an advance hearing application had been filed on 28.02.2025 and based on this, the discharge petition was permitted to be withdrawn. Upon enquiry into the records, the petitioner claimed that no such petition was available in the case file. Consequently, a complaint was filed on 10.02.2014 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, against the Presiding Officer and three staff members of the Magistrate Court. A sworn affidavit supporting this complaint was also forwarded to the Registrar of the High Court.

Additionally, the petitioner submitted that he had made a police complaint regarding threats to his life and liberty. This complaint, it was stated, was still pending. On these grounds, it was argued that continuation of the trial in Villupuram would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and therefore the case should be transferred to Puducherry or to a neutral venue.

The respondent, represented by senior counsel, opposed the petition. It was argued that the allegations were vague, exaggerated, and not supported by reliable material. The respondent contended that the status of being an MLA and holding a political post could not, by itself, form a valid basis for transfer. It was also submitted that there was no order of the trial court demonstrating bias or prejudice. The grievances raised by the petitioner were described as procedural and not substantive grounds justifying transfer. Further, it was argued that transferring the case would inconvenience the witnesses and parties, all of whom were based in or around Villupuram. The respondent maintained that the petition was an attempt to delay the proceedings.

Both parties were heard and the High Court proceeded to examine the materials on record, the legal principles governing transfers of criminal cases, and the arguments advanced.

The High Court observed that in the present case no order of the trial Magistrate indicated bias or unfairness. The Court recorded: "The fact that the respondent is a sitting MLA does not, by itself, mean that the trial court cannot hold a fair trial." It further noted that the complaint filed by the petitioner against the Magistrate and court staff was still under inquiry and no decision had been taken that could justify recusal of the trial Magistrate.

Justice Velmurugan elaborated on the legal standard applicable to transfer petitions: "The power to transfer a criminal case must be used carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice will not be done. That fear must be real and based on facts, not just a feeling or suspicion."

Referring to binding precedents, the Court cited the decision in Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1966 SC 1418] wherein the Supreme Court had held: "A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged." The High Court stated that the Supreme Court had cautioned against granting transfers based solely on allegations without substantiation.

The Court also referred to the judgment in Captain Amarinder Singh vs. Parkash Singh Badal [(2009) 6 SCC 260], observing: "For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. It is one of the principles of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done." It was further quoted: "The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution."

Justice Velmurugan further relied on Usmangani Adambhai Vahora vs. State of Gujarat [(2016) 3 SCC 370], noting: "Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial."

Applying these principles, the Court concluded: "In the present case, there is no material or circumstance which can justify invoking such extraordinary power of transfer. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner appears to be vague, general, and not based on any concrete incident or conduct of the Presiding Officer."

Addressing the petitioner’s grievance regarding withdrawal of the discharge petition, the Court observed: "Even the petitioner’s grievance regarding the withdrawal of the discharge petition, assuming it is true, is only a procedural matter that can be taken up before the same court or by filing the proper application. This, by itself, is not a valid reason to seek transfer of the case." The Court cautioned that permitting transfer on such grounds would enable parties to challenge proceedings based on minor or disputed procedural issues.

Also Read: Delay In Uploading Demand Order On GST Portal Not Time Barred If Service Effected By Email | Delhi High Court On Section 169 CGST Act

It was further observed: "The transaction, the witnesses, and both parties are all based in Villupuram, and there is no strong reason to shift the case to another district. Transferring the case at this stage will only cause delay and inconvenience to everyone involved."

The Court concluded its reasoning by stating: "The petitioner’s fears are based more on personal feelings rather than actual facts. The reasons given are not strong enough to justify the transfer of the case."

The Court dismissed the criminal original petition seeking transfer. Justice Velmurugan directed: "Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law, and to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The Court also ordered that the connected miscellaneous petition be closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. K.G. Senthil Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. R. Singaravelan, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Aswin Kumar A.

Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan vs. Dr. Lakshmanan

Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.17181 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.10787 of 2025

Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan