In a petition filed under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transfer of a case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi to any other court of competent jurisdiction, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula found the petition to be devoid of merit and noted that the allegations did not indicate a real likelihood of bias but seemed to be an attempt to delay proceedings.
The present petition was also filed to seek directions against order dated 12-07-2025 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket Court Complex wherein the request made in a transfer petition was declined.
Three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) were filed against the petitioner and they were being heard together before the JMFC. On 03-05-2024, the main counsel of the petitioner was unable to appear for the cross-examination. An adjournment was given by the Court subject to costs of Rs. 1000/-. Another adjournment was sought on 16-01-2024 as the counsel of the petitioner was engaged elsewhere. The Magistrate imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each case. Cross-examination eventually took place on 28-10-2024 in two cases but had to be postponed in the third case due to shortage of time.
The petitioner alleged that during the course of evidence, the Magistrate recorded the answers improperly and intervened in a way that influenced the witness’ testimony.
On 06-02-2025, a pass-over was sought by a junior of the petitioner’s counsel but the same was declined. The Magistrate then closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine in the third case. This order was challenged by the petitioner and by order dated 26-03-2025, the Sessions Judge set aside the order and granted another opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine.
The matters were fixed for 04-07-2025 at the request of the respondent. However, later on, the Magistrate advanced the hearing to 26-04-2025 in two cases for final arguments. The petitioner’s counsel sought an adjournment on said date and requested for the cases to be heard along with the third case. The request was declined and both matters were adjourned to 16-05-2025 to be heard separately.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the refusal to accommodate his request had given rise to a reasonable apprehension that the Presiding Officer was biased and that such apprehension does not have to be proved as an actual fact.
The Court perused the order dated 12-07-2025 and stated that the petitioner’s ground for seeking transfer was wholly misconceived. It was said that merely because the Trial Court advanced the date for final arguments does not indicate any element of bias or prejudice in the conduct of proceedings. Further, the Court noted that the petitioner did not even move a formal application before the Trial Court to question the change of date and hence, no allegation of bias could reasonably sustain.
The Court stated that transfer is an extraordinary measure that is to be exercised only when there are cogent circumstances that demonstrate a real likelihood of bias or partial conduct. It was also said that entertaining such requests without adequate foundation not only undermines confidence reposed in the Presiding Officer but also unsettles the progress of trial.
It was found by the Court that the allegations in the present case were speculative and unsupported by any substantive material. The Court said that rather than indicating a real likelihood of bias, the allegations seemed to be an attempt to delay proceedings and that entertaining such request would risk eroding judicial authority.
Thus, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. Lastly, the Court directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent within three weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Suman Raj, Mr. Foozan Shah
For Respondent – None
