[Cites 28, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Tewari @ Mahesh Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
2026:JHHC:5818
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2026
Mahesh Tewari @ Mahesh Tiwary, aged about 68 years, S/o Late
Sudhanshu Shekhar Tiwari, resident of Lower Burdwan Compound,
P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Lalpur, Ranchi, At present R/o D-4, 3-G, SAIL
City, P.O. - SAIL City, P.S. - Pundag, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand,
having his Chamber at 2C/60, Block-II, Jharkhand High Court.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ritu Kumar, W/o Sri A.K. Thakur, R/o 97, Vardaman Compound,
P.O. + P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..... Opp. Parties
WITH
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2026
Mahesh Tewari @ Mahesh Tiwary, aged about 68 years, S/o Late
Sudhanshu Shekhar Tiwari, resident of Lower Burdwan Compound,
P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Lalpur, Ranchi, At present R/o D-4, 3-G, SAIL
City, P.O. - SAIL City, P.S. - Pundag, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand,
having his Chamber at 2C/60, Block-II, Jharkhand High Court.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ritu Kumar, W/o Sri A.K. Thakur, R/o 97, Vardaman Compound,
P.O. + P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : In-Person [In both cases].
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
[In Transfer Petition (Crl) No. 05/26]
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
[In Transfer Petition (Crl) No. 06/26]
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
[In both cases]
---------
Reserved On : 03/02/2026 Pronounced On: ___/02/2026
1. Heard petitioner in-person, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. and
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Abhay
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. Both petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2 are the practicing
Advocates of Jharkhand High Court.
2026:JHHC:5818
3. Both the transfer petitions are arising out from case and cross-
case. Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 05 of 2026 arises out from
Doranda P.S. Case No. 192/2012 (Corresponding to G.R. No.
2298/2012) and Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 06 of 2026 arises out
from Doranda P.S. Case No. 191/2012 (Corresponding to G.R. No.
2297/2012).
4. The Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 05 of 2026 has been filed
under Section 447 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing / setting aside
the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi in Criminal Misc. (Transfer) Petition No. 464/2025, whereby
the application of the petitioner filed under Section 408 of the Cr.P.C.
(Section 438/440 of B.N.S.S., 2023) for transfer of Doranda P.S. Case
No. 192/2012 (Corresponding to G.R. No. 2298/2012) from the learned
court of Sri Sharthak Sharma, J.M., 1st Class, XXII, Ranchi to another
court of J.M., 1st Class, Ranchi under the jurisdiction of the learned
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has been rejected.
5. The Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 06 of 2026 has been filed
under Section 447 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing / setting aside
the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi in Criminal Misc. (Transfer) Petition No. 466/2025, whereby
the application of the petitioner filed under Section 408 of the Cr.P.C.
(Section 438/440 of B.N.S.S., 2023) for transfer of Doranda P.S. Case
No. 191/2012 (Corresponding to G.R. No. 2297/2012) from the learned
court of Sri Sharthak Sharma, J.M., 1st Class, XXII, Ranchi to another
court of J.M., 1st Class, Ranchi under the jurisdiction of the learned
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, has been rejected.
6. The petitioner submits following facts to be taken into notice in
connection of his prayer:-
(A) (i) Doranda P.S. Case No. 191 of 2012 corresponding to G.R.
No. 2297 of 2012 was instituted for the offence under Sections
341, 323, 354, 506, 504 of the I.P.C. by opposite party no. 2 at
Doranda Police Station against the present petitioner in respect
2026:JHHC:5818
of alleged occurrence stated to have taken within premises of the
Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in front of Court No. 5.
(ii) For the same set of occurrence, the petitioner has also
instituted F.I.R. being Doranda P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012
(corresponding G.R. No. 2298 of 2012) against the opposite party
no. 2 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 &
506 of the I.P.C.
(iii) Charge sheets were submitted in above noted both cases
and cognizance were also taken and used to fix both the cases on
the same day for hearing and trial.
(iv) From the year 2014 onwards, both cases were being tried
simultaneously and running together before the same court of
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi till the transfer of the then
learned Judicial Magistrate, Mrs. Nutan Ekka.
(v) Both the cases were listed together up to 31.10.2025.
Thereafter, both the cases were taken up for separate hearing
without recording any reasons, which is mentioned below in
tabular form.
Sl. No. Doranda P.S. Case No. Doranda P.S. Case No.
(G.R. No. 2297/12) (G.R. No. 2298/12)
1. 31.10.2025 31.10.2025
2. 11.11.2025 22.11.2025
3. 19.11.2025 28.11.2025
4. 02.12.2025 05.12.2025
5. 06.12.2025 16.12.2025
6. 08.12.2025 18.12.2025
7. 03.01.2026 03.01.2026
2026:JHHC:5818
(vi) Sudden separation of above two cases and their listing on
different dates is wholly arbitrary, particularly in view of the fact
that both the cases have been listed and heard together since
2014, including during the tenure of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sri Sarthak Sharma. The separate hearing of the said
cases was affected only after the order dated 17.10.2025 passed
in Criminal Contempt Case No. 03 of 2025 by Five Judges Bench
of this Hon'ble Court against the petitioner.
(vii) Opposite party no. 2 is presently functioning as a President
of Advocates' Association of Jharkhand High Court, as such
exercises considerable influence within the judicial circle, which
is a direct bearing on the manner in which the present criminal
cases are being dealt with.
(viii) The sudden separation of both the above cross / counter
cases for the purpose of trial without recording any valid reasons
and the consequent closure of the petitioner's case i.e. G.R. No.
2298 of 2012, in a hurried manner-particularly when on the
relevant date, the petitioner could not appear to depose as P.W.-1
and without issuance of notice to the other prosecution witnesses
or affording them any opportunity to appear amounts to a clear
abuse of the process of the Court, thereby giving rise to a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he is
likely to be denied justice.
(ix) Moreover, fixing of dates in G.R. No. 2297 of 2012 at very
short intervals i.e. after every 3-4 days continuously after
31.10.2025, despite the fact that prior to said date, the very same
learned Judicial Magistrate had been granting dates at the
intervals of 10 to 15 days, is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice is being
denied.
(B) (i) The case arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012;
G.R. No. 2298 of 2012 was fixed for recording of evidence of
petitioner on 28.11.2025, but the petitioner was compelled to
2026:JHHC:5818
suddenly rush to Delhi due to unavoidable circumstances and
therefore, could not appear before the learned Court. The reason
for absence of petitioner was duly explained to the learned Court,
nevertheless the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be
closed.
(ii) Thereafter in a most hurried manner, on 05.12.2025, the
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023) was also
recorded and the case was fixed for arguments without issuing
any notice to the other charge-sheeted witnesses, thereby causing
serious prejudice to the petitioner (Web copy of order dated
05.12.2025 is annexed as Annexure-3 to the present petition).
(iii) The series of orders passed earlier, as well as the manner
in which the subsequent orders have been passed, speak for
themselves and clearly reflect the manner in which the present
case has proceeded.
(iv) The petitioner has also filed an application under Section
311 of the Cr.P.C. for recall of the order dated 28.11.2025 and
further to allow him to be examined as a witness.
(v) The roster prescribed for disposal of cases arising out of
Doranda Police Station does not fall within the roster of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Shri Sharthak Sharma, nevertheless
the matter continued to remain under his jurisdiction, having
been transferred to his Court from the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Mrs. Nutan Ekka.
(vi) In the case arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 191 of
2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2297 of 2012, the defense
witness, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, a practicing Advocate of this
Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, was fixed to appear on
28.11.2025 for his evidence, and an application was filed on his
behalf seeking adjournment on the ground of illness, however,
the said application was rejected and the case was fixed for
arguments on 15.12.2025.
2026:JHHC:5818
(vii) On 15.12.2025, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of prosecution witnesses,
namely, Mrityunjay Kumar (P.W.-1) and Ritu Kumar (P.W.-3)
and to the said application, objection / reply was also filed by the
opposite parties.
(viii) The petitioner also intends to file an application for
permitting Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey to be examined as a defence
witness, however, due to the undue haste in fixing successive
dates and the manner in which the case is being hurriedly
proceeded with, the petitioner has developed a reasonable and
bonafide apprehension that he may not receive a fair and
impartial trial before the learned Court.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the petitioner
reasonably apprehends that a fair trial and judgment in accordance with
law and evidence may not be rendered in the present case by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Sarthak Sharma.
7. The petitioner appeared in-person for argument and elucidating
his grounds for entertaining the transfer petition has also pointed out
some relevant facts and orders.
(a) It is submitted that in the case arising out of Doranda P.S.
Case No. 192 of 2012) substance of accusation were explained
on 28.06.2014, wherein the accused Ritu Kumar pleaded guilty,
but claimed to be tried. Inspite of the plea of guilty by the
accused, no order was passed. Further, on 27.08.2016, the
petitioner was present to be examined as a witness, but his
examination was not recorded by the court on the ground that the
accused wish to cross-examine the witness herself. Accordingly,
witness was returned unexamined and summons to other
witnesses were re-called. On 16.09.2017 also witness was
present from the side of the petitioner, but not examined at the
request of defence. Thereafter, the accused was represented
through his lawyer, inspite of direction of the court to be present
physically. Charge of both the case and counter-case come under
2026:JHHC:5818
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Sharthak Sharma on
10.05.2024 and till 18.09.2025, the accused was represented
through lawyer. Even thereafter the accused was represented on
04.11.2025, 22.11.2025 and even on 28.11.2025 when the
opportunity of leading evidence of the petitioner was closed, she
deliberately appeared on 05.12.2025 and her statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The petitioner also filed an
application for recall of order dated 28.11.2025 under Section
311 Cr.P.C., which is pending up till now.
(b) It is submitted by the petitioner in-person, who happens to
be accused in the case arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 191
of 2012 that substance of accusation was explained on
04.01.2014 and the case was lingered at the instance of opposite
party. It appears that after taking all efforts out of six charge-
sheeted witnesses, four witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution and the evidence of prosecution was closed on
24.06.2024, but after recording of statement of petitioner under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court again given direction to the
prosecution for production of Investigating Officer for his
examination on the prayer of petitioner under Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. and in this regard DO Letter was also issued to the SSP,
Ranchi and report of the same was not received, inspite of that
the evidence was closed and statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded.
Therefore, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of getting
no fair and impartial trial of the case and justice by the court of Sri
Sharthak Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
8. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also failed
to properly appreciate the genuine apprehension entertained by the
petitioner for transfer of the case in the facts and circumstances as well
as the manner, in which the trial is being proceeded and rejected the
prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the case making illegal
observation to conclude the trial within one month, which is fit to be set
2026:JHHC:5818
aside and both these petitions may kindly be allowed and learned
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi be directed to transfer both the cases i.e.
Doranda P.S. Case No. 191 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 2297 of
2012 and Doranda P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.
No. 2298 of 2012 to the court of any other Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
so that petitioner may get justice.
9. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal & Others v. State of U.P. &
Another reported in 1990 Supp SCC 145. Para-2 of the said judgment
reads as under:-
"2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present
where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try
both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in
one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the
judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after
recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the
judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of
the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can
rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence
recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be
influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be
decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that
particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or
arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be
pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."
10. The petitioner has further relied upon the Judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sudhir & Ors v. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688. Para-8 of the said
Judgment reads as under:
"8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same
incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing
judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident
resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter
case" by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some other High Courts.
Way back in nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras
2026:JHHC:5818
High Court (Waller, and Cornish, JJ) made a suggestion (In Re Goriparthi
Krishtamma - 1929 Madras Weekly Notes 881) that "a case and counter case
arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the
same court, and each party would represent themselves as having been the
innocent victims of the aggression of the other."
11. The petitioner has further relied upon the Judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Maneka Sanjay Gandhi
v. Rani Jethmalani reported in (1979) 4 SCC 167. Para-2 of the said
judgment reads as under:
"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of
justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for
transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party
or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something
more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of
view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the
Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We
have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touch-stone bearing in mind the
rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having
jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him
should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties
and from that angle the court may weight the circumstances."
12. The petitioner has further relied upon the Judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh v State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374, wherein it is
held at Para-36 & 37 as under:-
"36. ........................ Fair trial means a trial in which bias or
prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is
being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give
false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear
material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.
37. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and
its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts
which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such
facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their
pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the
2026:JHHC:5818
accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and
protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout
over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect
the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be
beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the
totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated
scrutiny.
13. The petitioner has further relied upon the Judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Abdul Nazar Madani v.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2000) 6 SCC 374. Para 7 of the said
judgment reads as under:
"7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial
justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that
public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined,
any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407
and anywhere in the country under Section 406 of the Cr. P.C. The
apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required
to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises. If
it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially
and objectively and without any bias, before any Court or even at any place,
the appropriate Court may transfer the case to another Court where it feels
that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard and
fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always
to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the
parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant
consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the
parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone
who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension.
Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the
prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the
society."
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
has strenuously argued that there is no legal and valid ground for
entertaining these transfer petitions. The petitioner has prayed for
quashing / setting aside the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the
learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Hence, he has to file Criminal
2026:JHHC:5818
Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528
of B.N.S.S., 2023) and not proceeding under Section 408 of the Cr.P.C.
(Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023).
15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that
both the transfer petitions are not supported with affidavit of the
petitioner, rather Pairvikar has sworn the affidavit. Therefore, in view
of provision of Section 447 (3) of B.N.S.S., 2023, both the transfer
petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this count
alone. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the reported
judgment in the case of Vijay Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and
Another [(1999) 9 SCC 67] and Mathura Prasad Gautam Vs. B.V.
Karanth and Another [1987 1 Crimes (HC) 216].
16. It is further contended that it is quite surprising that the petitioner
is relying upon speedy trial to be prejudicial and has apprehension in
his mind that fair trial cannot be conducted by the concerned court. Both
the cases are summons trial cases instituted in the year 2012, but still
lingered for disposal for one way or another. The main grievance of the
petitioner is closure of opportunity of his evidence vide order dated
28.11.2025 against which he has filed an application under Section 311
of the Cr.P.C., which is still pending for hearing and disposal. The fixing
of early dates or even for some time separating one case with another
and fixing different dates in counter case does not amount to
miscarriage of justice or denial of fair and impartial trial. The petitioner
has raised typographical error as the ground by pointing out the order
dated 28.06.2014 and other old orders, which can't give rise to any
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. If any irregular or illegal
orders are passed by learned Magistrate that are always subject matter
of revision or other proceeding in accordance with law and remedy does
not lie in transfer of case. The petitioner has simply relied upon some
interlocutory orders, causing dis-satisfaction to him, but miserably
failed to bring on record the material supported by his own affidavit as
to how and for what reasons, he is apprehensive of injustice and fair
2026:JHHC:5818
trial from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Therefore,
present petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely illegal, baseless,
unfounded and devoid of any valid grounds and liable to be dismissed.
17. Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the
parties, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provision for
better appreciation of the case. Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023 reads as
under:-
Section 447. Power of High Court to transfer cases and
appeals.-(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in
any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to
arise; or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision
of this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of
the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of
justice,
it may order---
(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not
qualified under sections 197 to 205 (both inclusive),
but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such
offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or
appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate
to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal
or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of
Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and
tried before itself.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower
Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its
own initiative:
Provided that no application shall lie to the High
Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to
another Criminal Court in the same sessions division,
unless an application for such transfer has been made to the
Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
(3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall
be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant
2026:JHHC:5818
is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by
affidavit or affirmation.
(4) When such application is made by an accused person, the
High Court may direct him to execute a bond or bail bond
for the payment of any compensation which the High Court
may award under sub-section (7).
(5) Every accused person making such application shall give to
the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application,
together with a copy of the grounds on which it is made;
and no order shall be made on the merits of the application
unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the
giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.
(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal
from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is
satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice,
order that, pending the disposal of the application the
proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on
such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose:
Provided that such stay shall not affect the
subordinate Court's power of remand under section 346.
(7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is
dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the
application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant
to pay by way of compensation to any person who has
opposed the application such sum as it may consider proper
in the circumstances of the case.
(8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a
case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it
shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that
Court would have observed if the case had not been so
transferred.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order
of the Government under section 218.
18. I have given anxious consideration to the rival points of argument
raised by the petitioner himself as well as learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2. There is no doubt that for the same occurrence,
two cases respectively from both sides were instituted. Doranda P.S.
Case No. 191 of 2012 was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 against
the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 506,
504 of the I.P.C. and the cross-case i.e. Doranda P.S. Case No. 192 of
2026:JHHC:5818
2012 was instituted by the present petitioner, which was registered for
the offence under Sections 341, 323, 505 and 506 of the I.P.C. against
the opposite party no. 2 of this case. Both the cases were running in the
same court and usually fixed on the same date. The main contention of
the petitioner, as pointed out above, is that since coming into charge of
both the cases on 10.05.2024 by the present court, both the cases were
started fixing on different dates. The interlocutory applications filed by
the petitioner were used to be rejected. The fair opportunity to contest
by examining all the witnesses were also closed in hurried manner.
Hence, he filed an application under Section 408 of the Cr.P.C. (now
Section 447 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) before the court of Sessions, which
was rejected without specifying any valid reasons. Therefore, the
manner, in which the trial of both cases are being conducted are
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and there is reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he can't get fair and
impartial trial from the present court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
19. It is quite obvious that for the first time, the petitioner moved
before the court of Sessions for transfer of both cases to another court
of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class when due to non-appearance of
petitioner as a witness in Doranda P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012,
opportunity of leading evidence was closed vide order dated
28.11.2025. Later on, he has filed an application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. to re-call the aforesaid order and provide opportunity to
examine the witnesses for prosecution.
Similarly, in cross-case i.e. Doranda P.S. Case No. 191 of 2012,
the prosecution evidence was closed without examination of
Investigating Officer. The petitioner filed an application under Section
311 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed, but inspite of several letters issued
by the court to the D.G.P., SSP, Ranchi, the Investigating Officer did
not appear inspite of order of withholding of his salary, but the learned
trial court, inspite of specific direction earlier issued by him, again
closed the prosecution evidence without receiving any concrete
2026:JHHC:5818
information from the concerned authority. Although, later on, it
appeared that the said Investigating Officer has already been expired in
the year 2024.
20. The general principles of transfer of case laid down under
Section 407 (now Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023) as mentioned above,
the case of the petitioner does not attract sub-Clause (b) & (c) of Clause
(1) of Section 447 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
21. Now it has to be considered that the grounds taken by the
petitioner comes under the provision of sub-Clause (a) of Clause (1) of
Section 447 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 i.e. (1) Whenever it is made to appear
to the High Court-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
Criminal Court subordinate thereto;
22. The entire order sheets of both the cases, as pointed out by the
petitioner and discussed above, does not speak any allegation of pre-
existing bias on the part of the court. It also does not contain any
allegations against the court, whereby fair trial of both the cases are not
possible. Merely case and cross-case for some date fixed on different
dates does not cause prejudice to any of the party. Similarly, mere, dis-
satisfaction of the petitioner from some interlocutory orders passed in
the case is not sufficient to invoke the provision of Section 407 (Section
447 of the B.N.S.S., 2023).
23. Recent judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and various High
Courts regarding exercise of power under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. (now
Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023) focussed on preventing the misuse of
transfer powers and ensuring that cases are moved only in exceptional
circumstances. Expeditious trial of the case is the demand of time.
Instant cases which are summons trial cases are pending since 2012.
Expeditious approach taken by the court cannot be condemned, rather
at the same time the grievance of the petitioner against some
interlocutory orders may be get redressed by him through proper action
under law and the remedy does not lie in the transfer of cases from one
court to another causing further delay in the trial of the case.
2026:JHHC:5818
24. So far contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
with regard to affidavit sworn by the Pairvikar is concerned, I find no
valid ground in the above argument of the opposite party no. 2
inasmuch as the petitions filed by the petitioner is supported with
affidavit of Pairvikar and there is no specific requirement under Sub-
Clause (1) of Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. that the affidavit must be filed
by the petitioner himself.
25. On careful consideration of overall aspects of the case and the
points raised by the petitioner, I do not find that there is any reasonable
apprehension to be entertained on the basis of sufficient materials that
fair and impartial trial cannot be held by the concerned trial court. It
would also not be in the ends of justice to allow the present transfer
petitions.
26. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I do not find any
merit in these transfer petitions filed by the petitioner, which stand
rejected.
27. Interim orders passed in both the cases are also vacated.
28. Pending I.A., if any stand disposed of.
29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial
court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
February 26, 2026
Sunil/
Uploaded on 26/02/2026
