CRM-M/40043/2026 of BALRAJ SINGH ALIAS KAKA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 July 2026

1. Vide this petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioners seek transfer of criminal appeal No. CRA- 167-2017 titled Mail Kaur Vs. Jangir Singh and Others from the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, which was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Barnala vide order dated 14.07.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners faced trial in case arising out of FIR No. 97 dated 01.09.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bahadur, District Barnala and were acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide judgment dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P-2). Complainant preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, which was pending adjudication. The dispute revolved around a registered Will dated 22.04.2010 of one Bagha Singh. In parallel proceedings, the civil Court had upheld the validity of the Will and the decree had attained finality. During pendency of the criminal appeal, however, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala remarked that the appeal would be decided against the petitioners unless they admit the Will to be forged. Thus, the petitioners had reasonable apprehension that they would not receive fair and impartial hearing. An application for transfer of the appeal was moved before learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel submits that transfer of the case was required to preserve fairness and impartiality of the proceedings and the matter may be assigned to any other competent Court at Barnala.

3. Petitioners, who faced trial, in FIR No. 97 dated 01.09.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bahadur, District Barnala, were acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide judgment dated 30.10.2017. Appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. The submission that the Presiding officer of the Court made remarks indicating that the appeal would be decided against the petitioners, unless they admit the Will to be forged, does not appear logical. The appeal is to be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led during the trial of the case, not on admission of the petitioners and it is unacceptable that an officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge would pressurize the petitioners to admit that the Will in question was forged. The apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they would not get fair and impartial hearing from the Presiding officer has no basis and appears to be a figment of their imagination.

4. Transfer of a case from one Court to another indirectly casts doubts on the competency and integrity of a judicial officer from whom the case is sought to be transferred. Mere presumptions or apprehensions are not sufficient to claim transfer. Only good and sufficient grounds may justify a transfer, that too, on the basis of material on record. A transfer cannot be readily granted for any fancied notion or apprehension of a litigant. There is no sufficient ground to transfer the appeal and learned Sessions Judge, Barnala has rightly declined petitioner’s application observing that transfer could not be allowed casually as it would demoralize the judicial officer concerned. Allegations against the Presiding Officer, being vague, absurd, unsupported by any cogent material, order dated 14.07.2026 of learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, does not call for any interference.

5. The petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

6. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.

7. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JULY 22, 2026

JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No