CRM-M/39128/2026 of ASHWANI SYAL Vs GAURAV SIWACH on 20 July 2026

1. Bhartiya Na filed by resp 2024 pend Chandigarh

2. was summo of Negotiab JMIC, Panc respondent, conducting by responde Short adjou by the tri adjournmen in the com Panchkula o the interest 9128-2026(O&M) HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

CRM Date yal

V/S wach

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHA Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under Se agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 pondent under Section 138 of N ding before learned JMIC, Pa h. Learned counsel for the petiti oned as an accused to face trial ble Instruments Act, which w chkula for cross examination of t was a judicial officer in Ha trial of the case against the peti ent’s sister and the trial was bein urnments were being granted. Co ial court when petitioner’s nt for cross examination of the c mplaint case pending before lea ought to be transferred to the Dis of justice.

A HIGH COURT AT H M-M-39128-2026(O&M) of decision: 20.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondent ALINI SINGH NAGPAL ection 447 read with 528 of is for transfer of complaint NI Act No. NACT No.531 of anchkula to the Court at ioner submits that petitioner in a case under Section 138 was pending before learned the respondent. Sister of the aryana. The judicial officer itioner had been approached ng conducted with partiality. ost of Rs.500/- was imposed counsel requested for an omplainant. Therefore, trial arned JMIC, District Court strict Court at Chandigarh in KAPIL 2026.07.21 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39

3.

4. cases under motive can case for the apparent fr present befo When coun examination was oppose second tim complainan to 07.05.202

5. appear that manner. No only for the Transfer of on the comp sought to b apprehensio out to justif complaint.

6. 20.07.2026 Kapil

9128-2026(O&M) Heard. There is statutory mandate f r Section 138 of Negotiable In be attributed to learned JMIC, P e reason that long adjournments a rom order dated 07.05.2026, c ore the court and tendered his ev nsel for the petitioner (accused) w n, cost of Rs.500/- was imposed ed by the complainant/responden me. Thereafter, on 07.04.2026 nt was present, the case was adjo

26. From the record produced by the Presiding Officer is proce o allegation can be levelled ag e reason that sister of the resp f a case from one court to anothe petency and integrity of the Off e transferred. Transfer cannot on of a litigant, unless good and fy the same. There is no suffi

The petition is, therefore, dism (SH

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable for expeditious disposal of struments Act. As such, no Panchkula trying petitioner’s are not being granted. As is complainant/respondent was vidence by way of affidavit. was not willing to put cross d as request for adjournment nt who had appeared for the 6, when no witness of the ourned for cross examination y the petitioner, it does not eeding unfairly or in biased gainst the Presiding Officer, ondent is a judicial officer. er indirectly casts aspersions ficer from whom the case is be readily granted on mere sufficient grounds are made cient ground to transfer the missed. HALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.07.21 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document