Trial Court Advancing Date For Final Arguments Not Indicative Of Bias: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10k Cost on Litigant Seeking Transfer

The Petition before the High Court was 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, 1 South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner also challenged the order declining such a request.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The mere fact that the Trial Court advanced the date for final arguments does not, by itself, indicate any element of bias or prejudice in the conduct of proceedings. Scheduling is an aspect of case management, and unless shown to be actuated by mala fides, it cannot give rise to a reasonable apprehension of partiality. Significantly, the Petitioner did not even move a formal application before the Trial Court questioning the change of date. In these circumstances, no allegation of bias can be reasonably sustained.”

Advocate Praveen Kumar represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was facing three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On May 3, 2024, when the cases were listed for cross-examination, the Petitioner’s main counsel was unable to appear. The junior counsel sought an adjournment, which was allowed, but subject to costs of Rs 1,000. In January, 2024, the matter was listed again and as counsel for the Petitioner was engaged elsewhere, another adjournment was sought. This time, the Magistrate imposed costs of Rs 5,000 in each case.

The Petitioner alleged that during the course of evidence, the Magistrate did not properly record the answers and intervened in a way that influenced the witness’s testimony. On April 26, 2025, counsel for the Petitioner sought an adjournment due to ill health and requested that the cases be heard along with the third complaint. The request was declined, and the two matters were instead adjourned to May 16, 2025 to be heard separately. It was the petitioner’s case that the sequence of events, culminating in the refusal to accommodate his request for adjournment on medical grounds and for consolidation with a connected complaint, had given rise to a reasonable apprehension that the Presiding Officer was predisposed against the Petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the Petitioner’s ground for seeking transfer was wholly misconceived. “It bears emphasis that the power to transfer a case is not to be invoked casually or as a matter of convenience. Transfer is an extraordinary measure, to be exercised only when there are cogent circumstances demonstrating a real likelihood of bias or partial conduct. Entertaining such requests without adequate foundation not only undermines the confidence reposed in the Presiding Officer but also unsettles the progress of trial”, it noted.

The Bench asserted, “ It bears emphasis that the power to transfer a case is not to be invoked casually or as a matter of convenience. Transfer is an extraordinary measure, to be exercised only when there are cogent circumstances demonstrating a real likelihood of bias or partial conduct. Entertaining such requests without adequate foundation not only undermines the confidence reposed in the Presiding Officer but also unsettles the progress of trial.”

Finding the petition to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same and directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs 10,000 to the Respondent.

Cause Title: Gaurav Malhotra v. Umesh Chand Jain (Case No.: TR.P.(CRL.) 71/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Praveen Kumar, Suman Raj, Foozan Shah

Click here to read/download Order