Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 6067 (PNJ)

ASHWANI SYAL v. GAURAV SIWACH

CRM-M/39128/2026 · 2026-07-20

Shalini Singh Nagpal

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-39128 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 185 Ashwani Syal Gaurav Siwach CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. 1. Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by respondent under Section 138 of NI Act 2024 pending before learned JMIC, Panchkula Chandigarh 2. was summoned as an accused to face trial in of Negotiable Instruments Act JMIC, Panchkula for cross examination of the respondent. Sister of the respondent, conducting trial of the case against the petitioner had been approached by respondent’s sister and the trial was being conducted with partiality. Short adjournments were by the trial co adjournment for cross examination of the complainant. Therefore, trial in the complaint case pending before learned JMIC, District Court Panchkula ought the interest of justice. 39128-2026(O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Ashwani Syal V/S Gaurav Siwach CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by respondent under Section 138 of NI Act pending before learned JMIC, Panchkula Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner was summoned as an accused to face trial in of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was pending before learned JMIC, Panchkula for cross examination of the respondent. Sister of the , was a judicial officer in Harya nducting trial of the case against the petitioner had been approached by respondent’s sister and the trial was being conducted with partiality. Short adjournments were being granted. Cost of Rs.500/ by the trial court when petitioner’s counsel requested for an adjournment for cross examination of the complainant. Therefore, trial in the complaint case pending before learned JMIC, District Court ought to be transferred to the District Court at Chandigarh in the interest of justice. 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39128-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Section 447 read with 528 of is for transfer of complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of NI Act No. NACT No.531 of pending before learned JMIC, Panchkula to the Court at Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was summoned as an accused to face trial in a case under Section 138 , which was pending before learned JMIC, Panchkula for cross examination of the respondent. Sister of the in Haryana. The judicial officer nducting trial of the case against the petitioner had been approached by respondent’s sister and the trial was being conducted with partiality. granted. Cost of Rs.500/- was imposed hen petitioner’s counsel requested for an adjournment for cross examination of the complainant. Therefore, trial in the complaint case pending before learned JMIC, District Court the District Court at Chandigarh in KAPIL 2026.07.21 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39128 3. 4. cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, no motive can be attributed to learned case for the reason that long apparent from order dated 07.05.2026, complainant present before the court and tendered When counsel for the petitio examination, was opposed by the complainant second time. Thereafter, on 07.0 complainant was present, the case was adjourned for cross examination to 07.05.2026. 5. appear that the Presiding Officer is manner. No only for the reason that sister of the respondent is a judicial officer. Transfer of a case from one court to another indirectly on the competency and sought to be transferred. apprehension out to justify complaint. 6. 20.07.2026 Kapil 39128-2026(O&M) Heard. There is statutory mandate for expeditious cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, no can be attributed to learned JMIC, Panchkula for the reason that long adjournments are not being granted. As is apparent from order dated 07.05.2026, complainant before the court and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. When counsel for the petitioner (accused) was not willing to put cross examination, cost of Rs.500/- was imposed was opposed by the complainant/respondent second time. Thereafter, on 07.04.2026 complainant was present, the case was adjourned for cross examination to 07.05.2026. From the record produced by that the Presiding Officer is proceeding unfairly or in biased No allegation can be levelled against only for the reason that sister of the respondent is a judicial officer. Transfer of a case from one court to another indirectly on the competency and integrity of the Officer from whom sought to be transferred. Transfer cannot be readily granted on mere apprehension of a litigant, unless good and sufficient grounds are made out to justify the same. There is no sufficient ground to transfer the complaint. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 mandate for expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, no , Panchkula trying petitioner’s are not being granted. As is apparent from order dated 07.05.2026, complainant/respondent was his evidence by way of affidavit. ner (accused) was not willing to put cross was imposed as request for adjournment /respondent who had appeared for the .2026, when no witness of the complainant was present, the case was adjourned for cross examination From the record produced by the petitioner, it does not proceeding unfairly or in biased ation can be levelled against the Presiding Officer, only for the reason that sister of the respondent is a judicial officer. Transfer of a case from one court to another indirectly casts aspersions fficer from whom the case is Transfer cannot be readily granted on mere unless good and sufficient grounds are made the same. There is no sufficient ground to transfer the dismissed. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.07.21 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document