CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 $~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010458722026 + CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29904/2026 SARA CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanish Rana, Mr. Piyush Yadav, Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with Ms. Ruchi and Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advs. for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in T.P. Crl. No.31/2025 titled Mehtab Chaudhary v. The State & Ors. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge allowed the transfer application filed by respondent No.2 and directed that the case arising out of FIR No.365/2021, P.S. Kalyan Puri, under Section 324 IPC, titled State v. Sara Chaudhary, pending before the learned CJM/East, be transferred to the Court of learned ASJ-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The transfer was directed on the basis that FIR No.354/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 and FIR No.365/2021 were cross-cases arising out of the same occurrence. BRIEF FACTS: 4. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. On 20.07.2021, an incident took place at the furniture showroom of respondent No.2 situated at Khichripur Road, Delhi. Two FIRs came to be registered in relation to the said occurrence. 5. FIR No. 354/2021, P.S. Kalyan Puri, was registered under Section 308 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner against respondent No.2. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as SC No.1368/2022, titled State v. Mehtab Chaudhary. The case had reached the stage of final arguments and, as recorded in the order dated 19.05.2026, part final arguments had already been heard. 6. FIR No.365/2021 was registered on 30.07.2021 under Section 324 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2 against the petitioner. The case was registered as CR Cases No.3824/2022, titled State v. Sara Chaudhary, and was pending before the learned CJM/East. As per the order dated 05.03.2025, the matter was at the stage of consideration of charge. 7. Respondent No.2 thereafter filed T.P. Crl. No.31/2025 seeking transfer of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.365/2021 to the Court of Sessions. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, vide order dated 29.01.2026, noted that both cases arose from the same incident and were cross-cases. 8. Subsequently thereto, vide order dated 19.05.2026, the learned ASJ- 04/East, while dealing with SC No.1368/2022, noted that the case was at the stage of final arguments and part final arguments had already been heard. In view of the cross-case having been transferred to the said Court, the proceedings in SC No.1368/2022 were kept in abeyance till conclusion of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 proceedings in FIR No.365/2021. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer order, the petitioner has approached this Court. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner: 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge erred in transferring the case from the Court of the learned CJM to the Court of Sessions. It is contended that the power under Section 449 of the BNSS [section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC),] has been incorrectly invoked and that the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge had no power under the said provision to transfer the case in the manner in which it has been done. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case arising out of FIR No.365/2021 was being tried before the learned CJM and had reached the stage of consideration of charge. On the other hand, the case against respondent No.2 had already reached the stage of final arguments before the learned ASJ. It is submitted that the transfer has resulted in the proceedings against respondent No.2 being kept in abeyance and has thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 had knowledge of the cross-case from the beginning and had participated in the proceedings therein for a considerable period without seeking its transfer. It is therefore argued that the transfer application was filed belatedly, only after the case against respondent No.2 had substantially progressed. 13. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order causes substantial prejudice to the petitioner and deserves to be set aside. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 14. Learned APP for the State submits that the principle governing the trial of cross-cases is well settled. Reliance is placed upon Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145, wherein the Supreme Court directed that cross- cases arising from the same incident ought to be tried by the same Judge, one after the other, with separate judgments being pronounced on the respective cases. 15. Learned counsel submits that the transfer was made to ensure that both cases are dealt with in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and to avoid the possibility of inconsistent findings in respect of the same occurrence. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Analysis 16. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 17. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge was justified in transferring the case arising out of FIR No.365/2021 from the Court of the learned CJM/East to the Court of learned ASJ-04/East. 18. The contention of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction under Section 449 of the BNSS (section 409 of the CrPC) cannot be accepted. Section 448 BNSS (section 408 of the CrPC) confers upon a Sessions Judge the power to transfer a particular case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court within the Sessions Division where such transfer is considered expedient in the interests of justice. Section 449 further provides that a Sessions Judge may withdraw a case from a Chief Judicial Magistrate This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 subordinate to him and, after such withdrawal, may make it over to another Court in accordance with the Sanhita. Thus, the mere fact that the case was pending before the learned CJM cannot, by itself, operate as a bar against its withdrawal and being send over to another competent Court by the Sessions Judge. 19. The Supreme Court in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145, has laid down the procedure to be followed where there are cross-cases. The Court held that the same learned Judge should try both cases one after the other, hear the arguments in the first case and reserve judgment, thereafter proceed with the cross-case and, after hearing arguments therein, pronounce separate judgments in both cases. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced hereinbelow: “2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.” 20. The aforesaid principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688. The Court described the practice of trying and disposing of cross-cases by the same Court as a salutary one, inter alia, because the two cases represent different versions of the same occurrence and separate trials before different Courts may give rise to conflicting judgments. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow: “10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross-cases shall be tried by the same court, can be summarised thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident. 11. In fact, many High Courts have reiterated the need to follow the said practice as a necessary legal requirement for preventing conflicting decisions regarding one incident. This Court has given its approval to the said practice in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. [1990 Supp SCC 145 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 638] The procedure to be followed in such a situation has been succinctly delineated in the said decision and it can be extracted here: (SCC pp. 145-46, para 2).” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34 CRL.M.C. 7154/2026 21. In the present case, therefore, the fact that one case has progressed further than the other does not make the principle relating to cross-cases inapplicable. Rather, it explains the necessity of the two proceedings being placed before the same Court. 22. The argument that the transfer application was moved belatedly has also been noticed in the impugned order. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge recorded that respondent No.2 had knowledge of the cross- case and had participated in its proceedings on several occasions. The learned Court nevertheless concluded that the cross-cases were required to be dealt with by the same Court in view of the settled law. 23. This Court finds no jurisdictional error in the aforesaid approach. The purpose of placing cross-cases before the same Court is not to confer an advantage upon either party, but to ensure that the two versions of the same occurrence are considered in the manner prescribed by the Supreme Court. The evidence in one case is, of course, required to be appreciated independently of the evidence in the other case, in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Nathi Lal (supra). 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 25. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 26. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/ys/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:16:34