P&H HC Shifts Case Against Rewari Advocates Accused Of Disrupting Consumer Forum To Jhajjar Over Local Influence Concerns

The then President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, filed a criminal complaint in 2013 against nine advocates practising in Rewari, alleging, among other things, obstruction of the Forum’s proceedings, unlawful assembly, damage to the Presiding Officer’s nameplate and an attempted assault.

After earlier process orders were set aside, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused, except two, and directed an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. concerning those two accused.

The Magistrate referred the matter to the High Court for transfer, reasoning that the accused were advocates practising in Rewari and that transfer would serve the interests of justice; the District and Sessions Judge forwarded the reference.

The State supported transfer on the grounds of possible local pressure, while the respondents opposed it, citing the passage of time, the absence of allegations against the trial court and the inconvenience of transfer.

Section 407 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case where a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in a subordinate criminal court, or where transfer is expedient for the ends of justice; the High Court may act on a report from a lower court.

Under Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1418, transfer may be ordered where the apprehension that justice will not be done is reasonable; proof that justice will inevitably fail is unnecessary, but a bare allegation does not suffice.

Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307, recognises that a free and fair trial is essential under Article 21 and that transfer may be justified where public confidence in the trial’s fairness is likely to be seriously undermined, while cautioning that the power is to be exercised exceptionally and considering factors including possible influence on witnesses and interference with justice.

Under Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 3 SCC 62, transfer may be appropriate to ensure that justice is seen to be done, even without casting doubt on the trial judge’s impartiality.

The Court found the apprehension reasonable because the accused were members of the local Bar, two had been office-bearers of the District Bar Association, and the allegations concerned disruption of a judicial forum in the same district.

The trial court had raised the concern, the District and Sessions Judge had endorsed the reference, and the prosecution also apprehended local pressure; together, these circumstances supported a risk of local influence and interference with the course of justice.

The Court held that the age of the incident did not remove the concern, which arose from the accused continuing to practise before the local courts.

It further found that transfer to a nearby district could address inconvenience and that the asserted possibility of settlement did not alter the result, as no settlement was on record and the complaint included an offence under Section 353 IPC, which is not compoundable.

The transfer was not an expression of doubt about the trial court’s fairness.

The District and Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, was directed to assign it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or another court of competent jurisdiction; the Rewari court was directed to forward the complete record, and the parties were directed to appear before the transferee court on 25.11.2026.

The transferee court was to proceed in accordance with law, including with the Section 202 Cr.P.C. inquiry concerning the two accused, and to endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously; no opinion was expressed on the merits.