The Delhi High Court dismissed a transfer petition filed under Sections 407 and 482 CrPC. The petitioner alleged bias and apprehension of unfair trial due to relationships between officials and her employer. The Court held the apprehension was not reasonable and refused transfer.
Transfer petition and all pending applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~119
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Satish Kumar, APP for the State . Mr.Prateek Singh, Mr.Shahrukh Ahmad, Ms.Niharika Dhir, Mr.Ziaul Haq Ansari and ms.Zoha Aslam, Advts. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
1. The present petition has been filed under section 407 read with section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, seeking transfer of criminal complaint CT case No. 200812022 Dated 09.11.2022 titled as Pushpendra Singh vs. Pooja Verma & Anr. under Section 500 IPC read with Section 120B IPC pending before Ld. MM, Saket Court, South East District, New Delhi to the District and Session Court Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:24:04
NCR. The complaint describes various alleged illegal activities committed by two former employees, referred to as Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (Petitioner herein), who worked at the salon located in Crown Interior Mall, Faridabad. Petitioner herein was employed from 22.11.2022 to 04.05.2022. Petitioner left the salon abruptly, citing health issues. The Complainant warned the employees against illegal activities but took no action initially due to a lack of evidence. The Complainant called the police, and during questioning, Accused No. 1 admitted to the embezzlement along with Accused No. 2 (petitioner) and other employees. The Complainant sought to proceed against Accused No. 2 (petitioner) and provided details of clients who made payments to the accused‟s UPI accounts to the Investigating Officer (IO). Accused No. 2(Petitioner) also posted defamatory tweets, which were similar to those of Accused No. 1, indicating a conspiracy.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:24:04
East Delhi and a public tweet tagging various officials.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:24:04
there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. It was ruled that the apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension. Clearly, thus, merely entertaining apprehension that justice will not be done to him is not good enough for transfer of a case from one court to another unless such apprehension is a reasonable one and it is for the court dealing with transfer petition to see if there exists a reasonable apprehension of petitioner not getting justice. In this case it is noticed that even though the petitioner may have had his own reasons to be apprehensive of not getting justice before the learned Trial Judge, such apprehension for the reasons already stated would appear to be not a reasonable one. Directing transfer of a case from a particular court on the ground of prejudice or bias on the part of the Judge of such court, may amount to serious reflection on judicial conduct of such a Judge and thus fraught with demoralising effect. The transfer of a case, therefore, on such a ground must be visited with utmost circumspection though certainly not at the cost of denial of a fair trial to the person concerned. The case on hand presents a scenario where the petitioner's apprehension of not getting a fair trial before the learned Special Judge concerned, is found to be not a reasonable one. It has been held that consequently, the petition must fail and the same is accordingly dismissed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:24:04
judiciary. The apprehensions are not reasonable enough to transfer the case.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 22, 2024 rb/dg…
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:24:04
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is reasonable apprehension of bias in the trial judge to warrant transfer of a criminal complaint for fair trial?
Whether frivolous allegations of bias and partiality justify remand of a criminal case from a lower court to a higher court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶6
Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 1966 SC 1418 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KOMAL KUMARI
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition to transfer a criminal case from one court to another.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
