Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 30
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025)
Prasanna Kasini
…Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the
impugned judgment by which, on the request of the
husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings
in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the
appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred
to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.06
18:07:19 IST
Reason:
not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed
Page 1 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
transmission of the case within one month from the date of
receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other
side.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently
argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of
the travails of a woman left alone with two children to
prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. It
is also contended that the facts of the case unfold a
reprehensible deceitful conduct on the part of the husband
which further should have restrained the High Court from
transferring the case. It is also specifically pointed out that
the allegation of bias on which the transfer petition was
filed was based on the fact that a relative of the wife was
employed as a Junior Assistant in the District Court at
Sangareddy and another relative was working as Head
Constable in the Women Police Station at Sangareddy,
where the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class was situated. The bias alleged was the influence
exerted by the above two. It is specifically pointed out
from Annexure P-1 in the rejoinder that the Junior Assistant
Page 2 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
was transferred from the District Court under which the
Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was
functioning.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband
specifically referred to the counter affidavit filed wherein it
was stated that the appellant’s brother-in-law is a Head
Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station and her sister-
in-law who is a Senior Assistant in the District Court at
Sangareddy along with her brothers, who are politicians
were influencing the police and the Court staff,
perpetrating harassment on the husband, the second
respondent herein.
5. On facts, we cannot but notice some which are
relevant to understand what transpired between the
parties, though the subject matter is only a transfer
effected. The appellant and the second respondent were
married in the year 2007 and they proceeded to the United
States of America where the second respondent was
working. They returned to India later and it is the
contention of the appellant that due to persistent mental
Page 3 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
cruelty and harassment, a crime was registered at the
Raidurgam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and as a
counterblast in the year 2010, the second respondent filed
a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ranga
Reddy District. In 2011, a settlement was reached, on the
mediation of elders and the parties joined together. A
compromise was entered into which was produced in an
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the husband, against the criminal
proceedings pending against him, as initiated by the wife,
which was allowed by an order dated 13.02.2013 as is
evident from Annexure P-2. However, the husband
surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce and
Annexure P-1 order of divorce was obtained on 13.02.2013
which was never brought to the notice of the wife;
especially when Annexure P-2 was passed six days later to
the order of divorce, which was not disclosed.
6. After joining husband in USA in 2014, appellant gave
birth to a male child on 16.10.2015 at USA and a female
child on 14.09.2016 in India. In the year 2022, the wife
Page 4 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
along with the children returned to India and started living
with the husband’s family from where she was
unceremoniously evicted by the brother-in-law, is the
contention. The wife, it is asserted was made aware of the
divorce granted by the Family Court only through a legal
notice issued against the appellant, by her brother-in-law
on 16.08.2022 which notice is produced as Annexure P-3. In
the meanwhile, the appellant had also registered another
FIR at the Women Police Station, Sangareddy which has led
to criminal proceedings, now transferred. The appellant
on coming to know of the ex parte order of the Family
Court, granting divorce, approached the High Court with
an appeal wherein by Annexure P-7, the delay of 2709 days
in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter is said to
be pending.
7. We cannot but notice that prima facie, the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband
employed reprehensible deceit on the wife cannot be
easily brushed aside. Be that as it may, we are now only
concerned with the transfer of the case from Sangareddy to
Page 5 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
Hyderabad. We do not think that the High Court
appreciated the issue properly, especially since the
learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of hearing
the wife. We would not dwell upon whether the wife had
received the notice issued or not, but we notice that in the
overall circumstances and the reasons stated for raising the
ground of bias the transfer was not justified.
8. 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. Further, as has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellant-wife, the lady who was
working as Junior Assistant has already been transferred.
9. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the
husband, the second respondent would contend that he
Page 6 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
faced serious threat to life at Sangareddy where the wife’s
people are influential. 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.
10. We are of the opinion that the order of the High Court
cannot at all be sustained, especially on the grounds raised
of bias which we find to be inconsequential. If transfer has
been effected to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad, the case registered on transfer of C.C. No.136
of 2023 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sangareddy shall immediately be transferred back to the
Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, if
the matter is still pending and if it has been closed on any
grounds, including the default of the complainant to appear
before the transferred-Court, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate shall restore the proceedings and transfer it
Page 7 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sangareddy, without any fail.
11. We make it clear that the observations made in the
judgment are not on the merits of the case but are only in
adjudication of the transfer petition and would not govern
the final adjudication of the matter, which has to be on the
basis of evidence led in the case.
12. The transfer as above shall be carried out within a
month. The parties shall appear before the Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy on 16.02.2026,
which appearance shall be permitted even through
counsel.
13. The appeal stands allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 8 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025)
Prasanna Kasini
…Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the
impugned judgment by which, on the request of the
husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings
in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the
appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred
to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.01.06
18:07:19 IST
Reason:
not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed
Page 1 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
transmission of the case within one month from the date of
receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other
side.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently
argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of
the travails of a woman left alone with two children to
prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. It
is also contended that the facts of the case unfold a
reprehensible deceitful conduct on the part of the husband
which further should have restrained the High Court from
transferring the case. It is also specifically pointed out that
the allegation of bias on which the transfer petition was
filed was based on the fact that a relative of the wife was
employed as a Junior Assistant in the District Court at
Sangareddy and another relative was working as Head
Constable in the Women Police Station at Sangareddy,
where the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class was situated. The bias alleged was the influence
exerted by the above two. It is specifically pointed out
from Annexure P-1 in the rejoinder that the Junior Assistant
Page 2 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
was transferred from the District Court under which the
Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was
functioning.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband
specifically referred to the counter affidavit filed wherein it
was stated that the appellant’s brother-in-law is a Head
Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station and her sister-
in-law who is a Senior Assistant in the District Court at
Sangareddy along with her brothers, who are politicians
were influencing the police and the Court staff,
perpetrating harassment on the husband, the second
respondent herein.
5. On facts, we cannot but notice some which are
relevant to understand what transpired between the
parties, though the subject matter is only a transfer
effected. The appellant and the second respondent were
married in the year 2007 and they proceeded to the United
States of America where the second respondent was
working. They returned to India later and it is the
contention of the appellant that due to persistent mental
Page 3 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
cruelty and harassment, a crime was registered at the
Raidurgam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and as a
counterblast in the year 2010, the second respondent filed
a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ranga
Reddy District. In 2011, a settlement was reached, on the
mediation of elders and the parties joined together. A
compromise was entered into which was produced in an
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the husband, against the criminal
proceedings pending against him, as initiated by the wife,
which was allowed by an order dated 13.02.2013 as is
evident from Annexure P-2. However, the husband
surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce and
Annexure P-1 order of divorce was obtained on 13.02.2013
which was never brought to the notice of the wife;
especially when Annexure P-2 was passed six days later to
the order of divorce, which was not disclosed.
6. After joining husband in USA in 2014, appellant gave
birth to a male child on 16.10.2015 at USA and a female
child on 14.09.2016 in India. In the year 2022, the wife
Page 4 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
along with the children returned to India and started living
with the husband’s family from where she was
unceremoniously evicted by the brother-in-law, is the
contention. The wife, it is asserted was made aware of the
divorce granted by the Family Court only through a legal
notice issued against the appellant, by her brother-in-law
on 16.08.2022 which notice is produced as Annexure P-3. In
the meanwhile, the appellant had also registered another
FIR at the Women Police Station, Sangareddy which has led
to criminal proceedings, now transferred. The appellant
on coming to know of the ex parte order of the Family
Court, granting divorce, approached the High Court with
an appeal wherein by Annexure P-7, the delay of 2709 days
in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter is said to
be pending.
7. We cannot but notice that prima facie, the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband
employed reprehensible deceit on the wife cannot be
easily brushed aside. Be that as it may, we are now only
concerned with the transfer of the case from Sangareddy to
Page 5 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
Hyderabad. We do not think that the High Court
appreciated the issue properly, especially since the
learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of hearing
the wife. We would not dwell upon whether the wife had
received the notice issued or not, but we notice that in the
overall circumstances and the reasons stated for raising the
ground of bias the transfer was not justified.
8. 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. Further, as has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellant-wife, the lady who was
working as Junior Assistant has already been transferred.
9. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the
husband, the second respondent would contend that he
Page 6 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
faced serious threat to life at Sangareddy where the wife’s
people are influential. 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.
10. We are of the opinion that the order of the High Court
cannot at all be sustained, especially on the grounds raised
of bias which we find to be inconsequential. If transfer has
been effected to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad, the case registered on transfer of C.C. No.136
of 2023 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sangareddy shall immediately be transferred back to the
Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, if
the matter is still pending and if it has been closed on any
grounds, including the default of the complainant to appear
before the transferred-Court, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate shall restore the proceedings and transfer it
Page 7 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sangareddy, without any fail.
11. We make it clear that the observations made in the
judgment are not on the merits of the case but are only in
adjudication of the transfer petition and would not govern
the final adjudication of the matter, which has to be on the
basis of evidence led in the case.
12. The transfer as above shall be carried out within a
month. The parties shall appear before the Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy on 16.02.2026,
which appearance shall be permitted even through
counsel.
13. The appeal stands allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 06, 2026.
Page 8 of 8
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025