Petitioner sought transfer of a complaint case, maintenance petition and execution petition from Rohini courts on the ground that the respondent's mother was employed as a Reader in the same complex. The Court held that mere apprehension of bias without credible material is no ground for transfer, and dismissed the transfer petitions.
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.
$~66 to 69
VIPUL GANDHI .....Petitioner
versus
JYOTSANA BHATIA
.....Respondent
With
TR.P.(CRL.) 35/2025, TR.P.(CRL.) 36/2025 & TR.P.(CRL.) 37/2025
For Petitioner : Ms. Stuti Mishra, Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocates in items no. 66 to 69
For Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 14.05.2025
(a) Complaint Case No.10318/2023, titled as ‘Jyotsana Gandhi vs. Vipul Gandhi’, pending in court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court02, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi (subject matter of TR.P.(CRL.) 34/2025);
(b) Maintenance Petition No.475/2023, titled as ‘Jyotsana Bhatia vs. Vipul Gandhi’, pending in Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi (subject matter of TR.P.(CRL.) 35/2025 and TR.P.(CRL.) 36/2025);
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 01/07/2025 at 18:02:04
(c) Execution Petition No.278/2024, titled as ‘Jyotsana Bhatia vs. Vipul Gandhi’, pending in Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi (subject matter of TR.P.(CRL.) 37/2025). 2. The sole ground urged in support of the transfer is that the mother of the Respondent/Complainant, Ms. Jyotsana Bhatia, is employed as a Reader in one of the courts in the Rohini District Complex. It is, however, conceded by counsel for the Petitioner that she is not posted in any of the courts where the above matters are pending adjudication. 3. Transfer petitions under Section 407 CrPC (or Section 529 BNSS) are not to be allowed lightly, especially when sought solely on vague apprehensions or the occupation of a party’s relative. The Supreme Court has consistently held that mere apprehension of bias, without any credible material indicating a real likelihood of prejudice or influence, is not a valid ground to transfer proceedings from one court to another.1
1 See Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan 1965 SCC OnLine SC 341 (Para 13) and Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 517.
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 01/07/2025 at 18:02:04
proceedings to such an extent as to create a real likelihood of bias. The apprehension expressed by the Petitioner is speculative and unfounded. 7. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 14, 2025/ab
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 01/07/2025 at 18:02:04
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pending cases should be transferred because the respondent's mother works as a Reader in the same court complex.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of RajasthanRelied on¶3
Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan 1965 SCC OnLine SC 341 (Para 13) · Who else cites this
Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.Relied on¶3
Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 517 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipul Gandhi
Jyotsana Bhatia
Sanjeev Narula
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
