State Through President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari vs Rajinder Parsad, Advocate & Othr

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
148


CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026
State through President, District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari ...Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Parsad, Advocate and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A. G., Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 5, 8 and 9.
Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Abhikant Vats, Advocate and
Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.6 and 7.
*
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been registered on the basis of a reference
made by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, and
forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, for transfer of
the criminal complaint bearing CIS No.CHI/6867/2013, titled as “State
through President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari
Versus Shri Rajinder Parsad, Advocate and others” , pending in the Court of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, to a Court of
competent jurisdiction in some other District of the State of Haryana.
2. Briefly stated, the complaint was filed on 30.04.2013 by the then
President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, against
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 2
nine advocates practising at the District Courts, Rewari. It relates to the
incidents which took place between 17.04.2013 and 22.04.2013. As per the
complaint, some of the accused forcibly entered into the retiring room of the
Presiding Officer after a request made by one of them in a consumer complaint
was declined. On the following days, the accused along with others are alleged
to have formed an unlawful assembly and locked the premises of the Forum.
They are also alleged to have damaged the name plate of the Presiding Officer.
It is further alleged in the complaint that the then President of the Bar
Association rushed towards the complainant to assault him in the presence of
police officials. The complaint was filed for commission of offences under
Sections 353, 447, 427, 341, 228, 147, 120-B, 506 and 342 read with Section
511 IPC.
3. Vide order dated 15.05.2013, the accused were summoned by the
trial Court. The said order was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Rewari,
vide judgment dated 03.02.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2013 and
the matter was remanded for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, vide order dated
21.11.2017 (Annexure-4), the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rewari, summoned the accused, except Hitesh Kumar and Devender Kumar,
to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 353, 341, 447, 506 and
120-B IPC. Issuance of process against these two accused was postponed and
an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was directed regarding their identity.
4. On 15.12.2017, the District Attorney, Rewari, moved an
application (Annexure-5) for making a reference to this Court for transfer of
the case to some other district. The application was allowed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day vide order (Annexure-
6), the relevant part of which reads as under:
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 3
"Heard. Perusal of the Court file reveals that this complaint
has been filed on behalf of the then President District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari by making
serious allegations against the accused Advocates for
commission of offence under Section
353/447/427/341/228/147/120-B/506/342 IPC. All the
accused involved in this case are advocates and some of the
accused have already been ordered to be summoned vide
order dated 21.11.2017 passed by this Court. Thus, large
number of advocates, who are practising in District
Court, Rewari are involved in this case. The complainant
is the then President of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari. It will be in the interest of
justice, in the interest of accused as well as the
complainant that a reference be made in this matter to
the Hon'ble High Court through proper channel that
this case may be transferred to some other District.
Accordingly, the reference is being made today itself."
The reference was sent by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate vide letter No.2739 dated 19.12.2017 and was forwarded by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide letter No.22044 dated
21.12.2017. On the administrative side of this Court, it was directed to be
treated as a transfer petition and to be listed before the Bench as per roster.
5. Learned State counsel has supported the reference. It is argued
that all the accused are advocates practising in the Courts at Rewari and the
complaint arises out of disruption of the proceedings of a judicial forum of the
same district. As per the material on the trial Court file, the incident was
followed by a strike in all the Courts at Rewari and a law and order problem
was created. There is every apprehension of pressure on the trial Court and on
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 4
the prosecuting agency if the trial continues at Rewari. Hence, the case
deserves to be transferred to some other district.
Per contra
6. , learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
petition. It is argued that the incident pertains to the year 2013 and the situation
at Rewari has since normalised. No allegation has been made against the
learned trial Court. Transfer of the case to another district will cause
inconvenience to the accused, who are practising advocates at Rewari. Learned
counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 had also stated before this Court on
16.08.2023 that efforts were being made to resolve the matter amicably.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable length,
besides going through the material placed on record.
8. Since the reference was made in the year 2017, the matter is
governed by Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under this
provision, the High Court can transfer a case when a fair and impartial inquiry
or trial cannot be had in any criminal Court subordinate to it, or when the
transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Sub-section (2) of Section 407
Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to act on the report of the lower Court as
well. The principles governing transfer were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1418 .
It was held that a party seeking transfer is not required to show that justice will
inevitably fail, and the Court has only to see whether the apprehension is
reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The relevant observations read as
under:
“The law with regard to transfer of cases is well-settled. A
case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension
on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 5
done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that
justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he
shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he
entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the
circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the
administration of justice that justice should not only be
done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere
allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be
done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further
to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To
judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the State
of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension
is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension
must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court
to be a reasonable apprehension.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahar Singh Yadav and another
v. Union of India and others, (2011) 1 SCC 307 reiterated that a free and fair
trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held that when
public confidence in the fairness of a particular trial is likely to be seriously
undermined, the case can be transferred to meet the ends of justice. At the same
time, it was cautioned that such power is not to be exercised as a matter of
routine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down certain broad factors which
are to be kept in mind while considering a prayer for transfer. The relevant
observations read as under:
“17. ... It needs no emphasis that a criminal trial, which may
result in depriving a person of not only his personal liberty
but also his life has to be unbiased, and without any
prejudice for or against the accused. An impartial and
uninfluenced trial is the fundamental requirement of a
fair trial, the first and the foremost imperative of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 6
criminal justice delivery system. If a criminal trial is not
free and fair, the criminal justice system would
undoubtedly be at stake, eroding the confidence of a
common man in the system, which would not augur well
for the society at large. Therefore, as and when it is shown
that the public confidence in the fairness of a particular
trial is likely to be seriously undermined, for any reason
whatsoever, Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. empowers this
Court to transfer any case or appeal from one High Court
to another High Court or from one criminal court
subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of
equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High
Court, to meet the ends of justice.
*
24. ... an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because an interested party has
expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of
a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in
exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do
so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad
factors which could be kept in mind while considering an
application for transfer of the trial are:-
(i) when it appears that the State machinery or
prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused,
and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due
to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;
(ii) when there is material to show that the accused
may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause
physical harm to the complainant;
(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to
be caused to the accused, the complainant/the
prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to
be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 7
of travelling and other expenses of the official and
non-official witnesses;
(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating
some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial
trial because of the accusations made and the nature
of the crime committed by the accused; and
(v) existence of some material from which it can be
inferred that some persons are so hostile that they
are interfering or are likely to interfere either
directly or indirectly with the course of justice. ”
10. In Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2007) 3
SCC 62 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court found no material to doubt the impartiality
of the learned Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending. Even then,
the case was directed to be transferred, so that no person could go away with a
feeling of bias, however unfounded such impression may be. It was also made
clear that the transfer was not to be construed as casting any aspersion on the
learned Sessions Judge. The relevant observations read as under:
“10. ... A judicial officer in whatever capacity he may be
functioning has to act with the belief that he is not to be
guided by any factor other than to ensure that he shall
render a free and fair decision which according to his
conscience is the right one on the basis of materials placed
before him. There can be no exceptions to this
imperative, but at the same time there should not be any
scope given to any person to go away with the feeling
that the Judge was biased, however unfounded the
impression may be.
*
11. We are sure that the present Sessions Judge would have
acted in the true sense of a judicial officer. But
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 8
nevertheless to ensure that justice is not only done, but
also seen to be done and the peculiar facts of the case, we
feel that it will be appropriate if the High Court transfers
the case to some other Sessions Court in Raipur itself. We
make it clear that the transfer shall not be construed as
casting any aspersion on the Learned Sessions Judge… ”
11. In the present case, the apprehension has not been raised by a
party alone. It has been expressed by the Presiding Officer before whom the
case is pending and has been endorsed by the learned District and Sessions
Judge. All the accused are members of the Bar practising in the same Courts.
Two of them were the then President and Secretary of the District Bar
Association. The allegations relate to obstruction of the proceedings of a
judicial forum of the same district by members of the local Bar. The
prosecuting agency itself has expressed an apprehension of pressure in case the
trial continues at Rewari. These circumstances attract the second and the fifth
factors noticed in Nahar Singh Yadav's case (supra) . In such circumstances,
a trial at Rewari may not be seen as free from local influence. The apprehension
expressed by the learned trial Court is, therefore, reasonable and cannot be
termed as imaginary. This is an exceptional situation where transfer of the case
is necessary to provide credibility to the trial.
12. The plea of the respondents that the incident is old does not
advance their case. The cause of apprehension is not merely the incident of the
year 2013. It lies in the fact that the accused continue to practise before the
very Court which is to try them. The plea of inconvenience can be taken care
of by transferring the case to a nearby district. Comparative inconvenience of
the accused is only one of the factors noticed in Nahar Singh Yadav's case
(supra) , and it cannot outweigh the need for a trial which is fair and is also
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 9
seen to be fair. The statement regarding amicable settlement also does not help
the respondents, as no settlement has been placed on record. Moreover, the
complaint has been filed by a public servant in respect of an incident which
took place during the discharge of his official duties, and the offence under
Section 353 IPC is not compoundable.
13. It is made clear that the transfer is not being ordered on account
of any doubt about the fairness of the learned trial Court. As held in Satish
Jaggi's case (supra) , a case can be transferred even where no bias is attributed
to the Presiding Officer, so that no party is left with a feeling that justice was
not done. The reference has been made by the learned trial Court itself, so that
justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. It is also not to be ignored
that the complaint was instituted in the year 2013 and is still at the pre-trial
stage.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint
bearing CIS No.CHI/6867/2013 (CNR No.HRRE030018932013), pending in
the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, is
ordered to be transferred to the Courts at Jhajjar. The District & Sessions Judge,
Jhajjar shall entrust the case either to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jhajjar or to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, shall send the complete record of the case
to the transferee Court forthwith. The parties shall appear before the transferee
Court on 25.11.2026. The transferee Court shall proceed further, including the
inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. qua Hitesh Kumar and Devender Kumar, in
accordance with law. Since the complaint pertains to the year 2013, the
transferee Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-3833-2018 (O&M) 10
15. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
16. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Courts concerned.

04.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document