[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veeru Sharma vs Manish Sharma on 8 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
1 MCRC-59787-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59787 of 2025
VEERU SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
MANISH SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Dhengula - Advocate alongwith Shri Purushottam
Rai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners seeking transfer
of Criminal Revision No. 75/2025, presently pending before the Court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, to Dabra or any other
District Court outside Gwalior, in order to secure a free, fair, and
impartial adjudication in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the
petitioners were arrayed as accused in a private complaint lodged by the
respondent/complainant alleging that the petitioners had fired gunshots at
the place of the complainant and it is undisputed that no injury was
caused to any person in the alleged incident. The learned Judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
2 MCRC-59787-2025
Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, initially took cognizance against the
petitioners vide order dated 07.05.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners approached this Court by filing MCRC No. 9043/2016, which
was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2025, and the matter was remanded
to the learned JMFC, Gwalior, for fresh consideration.
It is further submitted that after remand, when the matter was
again taken up by the learned JMFC, Gwalior, the
respondent/complainant who is a practicing Advocate at Gwalior and
was holding an elected position in the Bar Association, Gwalior, namely,
Master of Library misused his dominant position in the Bar Association
and, mobilized the members of the Bar and other Advocates, who were
neither party to the case nor counsel therein and deliberately created an
atmosphere of pressure and intimidation inside the courtroom and is
continuing the same till date. On several dates of hearing, whenever the
petitioners or their counsel attempted to advance submissions before the
learned Trial Court, the respondent/complainant, along with a number of
Bar members, crowded the courtroom, remained conspicuously present,
and thereby generated a hostile and surcharged environment, which had
the effect of interfering with the free and fair conduct of judicial
proceedings.
It is further submitted that the power filed on behalf of the
respondent/complainant by multiple advocates and Bar members itself
demonstrates a collective show of strength, sufficient to intimidate the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
3 MCRC-59787-2025
petitioners and to undermine the independence of the judicial process.
Owing to such pressurized circumstances, the respondent/complainant
succeeded in obtaining an order dated 06.02.2025 from the learned
JMFC, Gwalior, which, according to the petitioners, was passed in a
courtroom environment vitiated by indirect pressure and intimidation.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2025, the petitioners
preferred Criminal Revision No. 75/2025 before the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. However, even before the
Revisional Court, the respondent/complainant continued the same
conduct of exerting influence and pressure by ensuring the presence of
Bar members who were neither parties nor counsel in the matter.
Apprehending that a fair and impartial hearing was not possible at
Gwalior, the petitioners were constrained to file Transfer Application
No. MJCR-4242/2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior,
seeking transfer of the criminal revision to Dabra or any other District.
It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, however,
vide order dated 11.12.2025, dismissed the transfer application without
properly appreciating the gravity of the allegations, the admitted and
consistent presence of Bar members during court proceedings, and the
genuine apprehension expressed by the petitioners. The learned Sessions
Judge failed to appreciate that justice must not only be done but must
also appear to have been done, and that even the likelihood or perception
of influence or pressure is sufficient to erode confidence in the fairness
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
4 MCRC-59787-2025
of judicial proceedings.
It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a
party seeking transfer is not required to establish actual bias or
miscarriage of justice and a reasonable and genuine apprehension in the
mind of a litigant that he may not receive a fair and impartial hearing is
sufficient to warrant exercise of the power of transfer. In the present
case, the respondent/complainant's position as an elected office bearer of
the Bar Association, coupled with the consistent presence of Bar
members during proceedings, has created a coercive and hostile
courtroom atmosphere, giving rise to a legitimate apprehension of
prejudice in the mind of the petitioners.
It is further submitted that the continuance of Criminal Revision
No. 75/2025 at Gwalior poses a serious threat to the petitioners'
fundamental right to a fair trial and fair judicial process as guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The present
petition has been filed bona fide and not with any intention to delay the
proceedings. The petitioners sought transfer solely to ensure that the
matter be adjudicated freely, fairly, and without any shadow of
influence. Transfer of the criminal revision to Dabra or any other district
outside Gwalior would not prejudice the respondent in any manner,
whereas refusal to transfer would cause irreparable prejudice to the
petitioners.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
5 MCRC-59787-2025
judgment of this Hon'ble Court of Allahabad in the matter of Ajai Singh
alias Sant Singh vs. State of M.P., decided on 20.02.2018 in Transfer
Application (Criminal) No. 258 of 2017, wherein it was held that when
the surrounding circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension in
the mind of the accused that he may not receive a fair and impartial
hearing, the power of transfer deserves to be exercised. Reliance is also
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 22.02.2007 [Appeal
(Crl.) No.241 of 2007 and S.L.P. (Crl.) 6154 of 2006 , wherein it was
categorically held that it is not necessary to establish actual bias and a
reasonable apprehension of prejudice is sufficient to justify transfer in
order to preserve the confidence of parties in the justice delivery system.
In view of the above submissions, following prayer has been
made:
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be allowed this petition and set aside
the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Learned Session
Judge, Gwalior in MJCR-4242/2025 and transfer the
proceedings of Criminal Revision No. 75/2025 pending
before Learned Additional Session Judge, Gwalior form
Gwalior to Dabra and any other District court outside the
district of Gwalior, and any other relief which the
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
6 MCRC-59787-2025
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
petition, submitting that the applicants have not placed any material on
record to demonstrate that the Presiding Officer of the Revisional Court
acted or is likely to act under any extraneous influence or pressure. It is
contended that mere apprehension or suspicion on the part of a litigant,
without any tangible evidence, cannot constitute a valid ground for
transfer of proceedings. The State has emphasized that the
respondent/complainant's status as an advocate or office bearer in the
Bar Association, by itself, does not imply misuse of position or
interference with the judicial process.
It is further submitted that the Criminal Revision No. 75/2025 has
been listed for hearing only recently and no substantive or prejudicial
proceedings have taken place. There is no allegation or proof of any
coercion, intimidation, or obstruction in the courtroom that could affect
the impartiality of the trial. The State has urged that the petition is based
on conjecture and general apprehension, which is insufficient to invoke
the extraordinary power of transfer under Section 582 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and therefore the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this
Court finds no merit in the present petition seeking transfer of Criminal
Revision No. 75/2025 from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
7 MCRC-59787-2025
Judge, Gwalior, to any other Court outside Gwalior, as the principal
ground urged by the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is a practicing
advocate at Gwalior and holds the post of Master of Library in the Bar
Association, and by virtue of such position, he is exerting pressure
through other members of the Bar, thereby creating an atmosphere
prejudicial to a fair hearing. However, the allegations made in this regard
are vague, generalized, and unsupported by any specific material and the
petitioners have failed to disclose the names of the advocates allegedly
involved except for certain names of office bearers of Bar Association,
who are practicing Advocates and had signed Vakalatnama, the nature of
the alleged pressure, the dates on which such pressure was exercised, or
any instance demonstrating that the Presiding Officer acted or is likely to
act under such influence. In the absence of concrete particulars or
objective material, the plea of reasonable apprehension cannot be
accepted.
From the record it is further evident that Criminal Revision No.
75/2025 was instituted on 28.02.2025 and, after receipt of the original
record on 13.03.2025, the matter has been listed for hearing without any
effective proceedings having taken place and there is nothing on record
to suggest that the Presiding Officer of the Revisional Court has acted
contrary to law or under any extraneous pressure. The mere presence of
advocates in the courtroom, without anything more, cannot be construed
as interference with the judicial process.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
8 MCRC-59787-2025
The power of transfer under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is an extraordinary power, to be exercised
sparingly and only when a real, reasonable, and bona fide apprehension
of injustice is established on objective grounds. Mere suspicion,
conjecture, or subjective dissatisfaction with the forum or with judicial
orders passed in accordance with law does not furnish a valid basis for
transfer. The fact that respondent No.1 is an advocate or holds an office
in the Bar Association, by itself, is not sufficient to warrant transfer
unless it is shown that such position has been misused so as to subvert
the fair administration of justice, which has not been demonstrated in the
present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Ajai Singh alias Sant Singh vs. State of U.P.
(supra). The said judgment was rendered on its own peculiar facts,
wherein there existed specific and demonstrable circumstances giving
rise to a genuine apprehension of prejudice. In the present case,
however, no such concrete or compelling circumstances have been
brought on record. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision is clearly
distinguishable and does not advance the case of the petitioners.
Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra). There
can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition laid down therein that
proof of actual bias is not required and that a reasonable apprehension of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:798
9 MCRC-59787-2025
prejudice may justify transfer. However, even as per the said judgment,
the apprehension must be reasonable, genuine, and founded on tangible
material. In the present case, the apprehension projected by the
petitioners is based solely on assumptions and surmises, without any
supporting material, and therefore falls short of the standard laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thus, while the legal principles enunciated in the judgments relied
upon by the petitioners are not disputed, their application depends
entirely on the factual matrix of each case. In the absence of any
objective material indicating likelihood of bias, pressure, or denial of fair
hearing, the said judgments do not aid the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for exercise of
the power of transfer under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition is accordingly found to be devoid
of merit and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
