The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a transfer application filed by two accused persons, imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000 after finding that they made “reckless and baseless” allegations against a Presiding Officer of the Jhansi District Court.
Justice Samit Gopal, while dismissing the plea, also took serious note of an illegible order passed by the trial court, observing that apart from the date and the acronym ‘N.B.W.’, nothing in the handwritten order could be deciphered.
Background of the Case
The applicants, Shyam Sundar and Om Prakash, approached the High Court under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking the transfer of Complaint Case No. 15951 of 2024 (Hari Shankar Vs. Shyam Sundar and another). The case, involving charges under Sections 387, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1 / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
Previously, the applicants had challenged the summoning order dated August 6, 2025. A co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, vide order dated November 15, 2025, had declined to quash the proceedings but granted the applicants liberty to file a discharge application at the appropriate stage, directing the trial court to dispose of it within six weeks.
Arguments Raised
Counsel for the applicants, Sri Niraj Tiwari, argued that the trial court was acting in haste and under the pressure of one Pushpendra Richhariya, a practicing advocate and the brother of opposite party no. 2 (the complainant).
Specifically, in Paragraph 14 of the transfer application, the applicants alleged that the complainant’s brother met the Presiding Officer in his chamber. They claimed that solely on his persuasion, the trial court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against them on November 5, 2025. The affidavit supporting this allegation stated it was based on a “perusal of records.”
The applicants further contended that the trial court was coercing them to file a discharge application prematurely, despite the High Court’s direction to file it at an “appropriate stage.”
State’s Submission
Opposing the plea, Learned State Counsel Sri Bade Lal Bind argued that the transfer application was a tactic to delay the trial. He submitted that despite the High Court’s earlier protection and direction, the applicants had failed to file a discharge application for over two months.
Regarding the allegations of bias, the State argued that the claims in Paragraph 14 were contemptuous. The counsel pointed out that while the affidavit claimed the allegations were based on records, the order dated November 5, 2025, contained nothing to substantiate the claim that the Presiding Officer met anyone in chambers.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
On Reckless Allegations Justice Samit Gopal examined the records and found the allegations against the Presiding Officer to be unsubstantiated. The Court noted that the applicants had sworn the affidavit based on a “perusal of records,” yet the record did not support the claim that the impugned order was passed following a meeting in the Judge’s chamber.
The Court observed:
“The allegations in paragraph 14… are without any basis and substance. The said paragraph is sworn on perusal of records by its deponent Om Prakash the applicant no.2. The records do not substantiate any such allegation. Thus the allegations are totally reckless and without any basis.”
Regarding the stage of the trial, the Court clarified that since the accused had been summoned and directed by the High Court to seek discharge, the current proceeding was indeed the “appropriate stage” for filing such an application. The Court noted that the applicants had failed to do so despite repeated opportunities.
On Illegible Trial Court Order During the proceedings, the High Court examined the certified copy of the trial court’s order dated November 5, 2025 (Annexure-7), which issued the NBW. The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the legibility of the handwriting.
Justice Samit Gopal remarked:
“Nothing can be read as to what is written in the said order except for the date, month of the said order and the word ‘N.B.W.’ Even the year in which it has been passed is illegible.”
The Court further observed that despite repeated administrative and judicial directions to write legible orders, the trial court appeared “totally ignorant” and had signed the order without even looking into it to check if it was legible.
Verdict
The High Court dismissed the transfer application and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 (One Lakh) on the applicants.
- Payment of Cost: The amount must be deposited before the trial court within 10 days.
- Utilization: The money will be transmitted to the District Legal Services Committee.
- Default: If unpaid, the District Magistrate, Jhansi, is directed to recover the amount as land revenue.
Directions on Legibility The Court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi, to bring the issue of the illegible order to the notice of the concerned trial court officer. The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to communicate the order for necessary action, and a compliance report has been sought from the District Judge within two weeks. The matter is listed in Chambers on February 25, 2026, for further orders regarding the compliance report.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shyam Sundar and another Vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case Number: Transfer Application (Criminal) No. – 50 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Samit Gopal
