Jaspreet Kaur Vs Jagjeet Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jaspreet Kaur Vs Jagjeet Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only procedural relief: condonation of nine days' delay in re-filing the petition (CRL.M.A. 10471/2026). The main petition was dismissed in limine as without merit, with no relief granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS should be invoked to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 and transfer M.C. No.581/2023 from the learned Trial Court (JMFC (Mahila Court)-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) to another competent Court on the ground of alleged bias.

Court's answer

This Court found that the petitioner was once again trying to re-agitate the very same issues already negated by the well-reasoned speaking impugned order of the learned Principal Judge, in which all (similar) contentions qua the alleged bias of the learned Trial Court had been elaborately rejected.

Ratio / Principle

Application CRL.M.A. 10471/2026 for condonation of nine days' delay in re-filing the petition is allowed and the delay of nine days in re-filing is condoned; the application is disposed of.

Key takeaways

Since the said order(s) were passed by a Court of law in discharge of its duties, merely because they were not favourable to the petitioner does/cannot involve an element of bias; it remained open to her to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, which she has already done by challenging the discharge order in a separate proceeding.ratio¶18
As there were no other facts, issues, reasons, grounds or arguments raised before this Court that had not been conclusively answered by the learned Principal Judge, there was no reason to issue notice or invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to interfere with the impugned order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Saurabh Banerjee, J.), order dated 07.04.2026 — CRL.M.C. 2574/2026, Jaspreet Kaur v. Jagjeet Singh & Ors.: Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking setting aside of the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in T.P. No.66/2025, and transfer of M.C. No.581/2023 from the learned JMFC (Mahila Court)-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to another competent Court on the ground of alleged bias, dismissed in limine. The Court found the petitioner was re-agitating issues already negated by the well-reasoned speaking impugned order, wherein all similar contentions qua alleged bias had been elaborately rejected, including the categorical holding that mere discharge of the petitioner's husband and mother-in-law vide the order on charge dated 28.06.2025 could not form any basis to assume bias. The Court held that orders passed by courts in discharge of their duties do not involve bias merely because they are unfavourable, the petitioner having already challenged the discharge order in a separate proceeding; no notice was issued and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS was not invoked. Nine days' delay in re-filing was condoned (CRL.M.A. 10471/2026).

$~54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 2574/2026, CRL.M.A. 10470/2026 JASPREET KAUR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Kartik Chettiar and Mr. Yash Tripathi, Advocates.

versus JAGJEET SINGH & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate SI Mandeep Kumar, PS-Tilak Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R % 07.04.2026

CRL.M.A. 10471/2026 ( for condonation of 9 days delay in re-filing )

By virtue of the present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of a delay of nine days in re-filing the present petition. 2. Taking into account the period for which condonation of delay is sought, the application is, for the reasons stated therein, allowed and the delay of nine days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2574/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10470/2026

By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 15.12.2025 ( impugned order ) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,

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 10/04/2026 at 12:00:21

Delhi ( learned Principal Judge ) in T.P. No.66/2025 and transfer of M.C. No.581/2023 from the Court of the learned JMFC (Mahila Court)-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ( learned Trial Court ) to another competent Court on the ground of alleged bias.

At the outset, this Court finds that the petitioner is once again trying to re-agitate the very same issues which have already been negated by a well-reasoned speaking impugned order by the learned Principal Judge. In fact, a perusal thereof reflects that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration not only the factual matrix involved, but also the settled legal position as well. The impugned order also reflects that all the (similar) contentions raised by the petitioner in the present petition qua the alleged bias of the learned Trial Court have, in fact, been elaborately rejected by the learned Principal Judge, and it has been categorically held that mere discharge of the husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner vide the order on charge dated 28.06.2025 could not form any basis to assume bias, as the onus was on the petitioner to substantiate her claims with material particulars.

Even otherwise, since the said order(s) were passed by a Court of law in discharge of the duties, merely because it was not a favourable order in favour of the petitioner does/ cannot involve an element of bais, all the more whence it is always open for the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies as available to her in accordance with law. In fact, this Court is apprised by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has already taken recourse to appropriate remedy as available in accordance with law by challenging the said order of discharge by way a separate proceeding.

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 10/04/2026 at 12:00:21

At the end of the day, since there are no other facts asserted, issues, reasons and grounds raised and/ or arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, and which have not been conclusively answered by the learned Principal Judge there is no reason for this Court to issue notice in this petitioner so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to interfere with the impugned order.

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine .

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

APRIL 07, 2026/NA

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 10/04/2026 at 12:00:21