Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Transfer of Defamation Complaint; Imposes Costs for Baseless Allegations of Judicial Bias and Forum Shopping
Case Name: Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-72601-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that transfer of a criminal trial cannot be ordered on the basis of vague, unsubstantiated, or imaginary apprehensions of bias against the Presiding Judicial Officer. The Court held that unfavourable judicial orders or mere dissatisfaction with the conduct of proceedings do not constitute valid grounds for transfer and that frivolous transfer petitions amount to abuse of the process of law and forum shopping.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 528 read with Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking transfer of a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC was dismissed.
The underlying complaint, bearing No. COMI/84/2019 titled Tarsem Kumar Ruby v. D.C. Bansal & Another, was filed in the year 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a rival Rotary member whose membership had been terminated, circulated false and defamatory material within Rotary International circles with the intent to malign his reputation after losing internal elections. The petitioner was summoned, granted bail, and the trial proceeded in accordance with law.
The petitioner sought transfer of the complaint alleging bias on the part of the trial Magistrate, collusion with the complainant, frequent fixation of dates, harassment of an aged accused, and alleged assurances given by the Presiding Officer through counsel. The Sessions Judge rejected the transfer application, holding that mere apprehension of injustice without cogent material was insufficient.
Before the High Court, the petitioner reiterated allegations of bias and contended that being an octogenarian residing in Dehradun, he was subjected to undue hardship and denial of fair trial. It was also argued that prolonged pendency of the complaint since 2019 violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court exhaustively examined the statutory scheme governing transfer of criminal cases under Section 408 CrPC and its corresponding provision under Section 448 BNSS, along with authoritative Supreme Court precedents. The Court held that transfer jurisdiction is discretionary, to be exercised sparingly and only when the ends of justice are demonstrably threatened. It emphasised that judicial error or adverse orders cannot be equated with judicial bias.
The Court strongly deprecated the petitioner’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Presiding Judicial Officer and the complainant’s counsel without any supporting material, observing that such allegations strike at the independence of the judiciary and encourage forum shopping. It held that allowing transfers on such grounds would lead to chaos in the adjudicatory process.
On facts, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish any real likelihood of bias or miscarriage of justice. The delay in proceedings could not be attributed solely to the trial court, and no exceptional circumstance warranting transfer was made out.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The petitioner was saddled with costs of ₹50,000/-, of which ₹25,000/- was directed to be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, and ₹25,000/- to be paid to the complainant through the trial court. The trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously and uninfluenced by the observations made.