The Supreme Court has held that the mere employment of a party’s relative in a local court or police station does not constitute sufficient ground to allege bias against the presiding Judge or warrant the transfer of a criminal case.
The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a High Court order that had transferred a criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad based on the husband’s apprehension of bias and threat.
Case Background
The appellant-wife, Prasanna Kasini, challenged an ex parte judgment of the High Court which, at the request of her husband (the second respondent), transferred the proceedings in C.C. No. 136 of 2023 from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
The couple married in 2007 and lived in the United States. Following marital discord, the husband filed for divorce in 2010, but the parties reconciled in 2011. The appellant contended that despite the reconciliation and a compromise recorded in a Section 482 CrPC petition in 2013, the husband “surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce” and obtained a decree on February 13, 2013, without her knowledge.
The appellant stated she lived with the husband in the USA until 2022, bearing two children, and only learned of the divorce after being evicted from the matrimonial home in India. She subsequently registered an FIR at the Women Police Station, Sangareddy, leading to the criminal proceedings in question.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the High Court’s transfer order was passed without hearing her and failed to consider “the travails of a woman left alone with two children to prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown.”
Regarding the husband’s plea for transfer, the wife contended that the allegation of bias was unfounded. The husband had claimed that the wife’s brother-in-law, a Head Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station, and her sister-in-law, a Senior Assistant in the District Court, were influencing the police and court staff. The appellant’s counsel clarified that the relative working as a Junior Assistant in the District Court had already been transferred.
The counsel for the respondent-husband supported the High Court’s decision, reiterating that his client faced a “serious threat to life at Sangareddy where the wife’s people are influential.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that while the wife’s contention regarding the husband’s “reprehensible deceitful conduct” regarding the divorce decree “cannot be easily brushed aside,” the primary issue was the validity of the transfer.
The Court held that the High Court had not appreciated the issue properly, particularly as the order was passed without hearing the wife. Addressing the allegation of bias, the Bench observed:
“Primarily, it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge. We cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself.”
The Court termed the grounds raised for bias as “inconsequential.”
Regarding the husband’s safety concerns, the Court noted that as an accused, he could seek exemption from personal appearance:
“The second respondent who is an accused in the proceedings could seek for appearance through a counsel or by video conferencing, during the pendency of the case and if at all his presence is required by the Magistrate, he could file an application for providing sufficient protection to appear before the Court which shall be favourably considered by the Magistrate.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court directed that C.C. No. 136 of 2023 be immediately transferred back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy.
The Bench further directed that if the case had been closed due to the complainant’s default in the transferred court, the Metropolitan Magistrate must restore the proceedings before transferring it back. The parties have been directed to appear before the Sangareddy Court on February 16, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Prasanna Kasini v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7038 of 2025)
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
