2026:HHC:39117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 954 of 2026 Reserved on: 01.09.2026 Date of Decision: 14.09.2026 Sunil Pal ...Petitioner Versus Baljeet Pathania ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the proceedings in the complaint titled Baljeet Pathania vs. Sunil Paul, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur District, Kangra. It has been asserted that the respondent/complainant was engaged as counsel by the petitioner's wife in a property dispute between the private parties. The respondent obtained the signatures of the petitioner and other family members on blank papers and blank cheques. He 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 misused the fiduciary relationship between him and his client. The petitioner sold a portion of his land measuring about 8 marlas to the respondent. The respondent failed to pay the entire sale consideration. He started compelling the petitioner and his family members to exchange an adjoining and more valuable portion of the land belonging to the petitioner's wife. When the petitioner's wife refused to part with her valuable property, the respondent threatened her. The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army and was deployed outside his native place. The respondent obtained a blank signed cheque and blank signed stamp papers from the petitioner's daughter. He filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by misusing the cheque. The respondent is practising before the Court, where the complaint is pending. The petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that he will not get fair justice from the Court. The matter is pending for recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, be transferred to some other Court, preferably at Shimla. 3 2. Mr Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent/complainant is practising Advocate before the Court, where the complaint is pending. The petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the respondent would influence the proceedings pending before the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. be transferred to some Court at Shimla. He relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Balram Sharma v. State of HP. CrMPM No. 665 of 2021 decided on 16.12.2022 in support of his submissions. 3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4. The parameters for dealing with an application for transfer of the criminal cases were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha VS State of West Bengal 2023 (3) Supreme 180 wherein it was observed: “25. Coming to the second limb of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we may firstly notice some of the well-defined contours in relation thereto. It has by now been well established that a well-founded apprehension that justice will not be done is a prerequisite for the transfer of the case. Tracing the power of transfer of a case, we are 4 reminded of Lord Hewart’s dictum in Rex v. Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256 stating that “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 26. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374; Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167; R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (2000) 7 SCC 129], and its importance cannot be emphasised enough. However, to obtain the transfer of a case, the Petitioner is required to show circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains a reasonable apprehension. This apprehension cannot be imaginary and cannot be a mere allegation. [Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC 260]. 27. The power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when justice is apparently in grave peril. This Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases, considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the prosecution agency. [Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2011) 1 SCC 307; Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2020, 22 February 2023]. Thus, over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations wherein such power can be justiciably invoked. 28. In Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC 260, this Court observed as follows: “19. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State 5 under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC.” 29. In Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2011) 1 SCC 307, after analysing the case law, this Court enumerated the basic principles of the power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC as follows: “29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 CrPC should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that 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 a likelihood of a 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 of travelling and other expenses of the official and nonofficial witnesses; 6 (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of the inability to hold a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; (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.” 30. In R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (2000) 7 SCC 129, this Court noted the crucial separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and held that “Judges are not influenced in any manner either by the propaganda or adverse publicity. Cases are decided on the basis of the evidence available on record and the law applicable.” 31. The convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the language spoken by them are also relevant factors when deciding a transfer petition, as has been noted by this Court in a catena of judgments. [Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of TN (2000) 6 SCC 204; Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N. (2005) 8 SCC 771; Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 6 SCC 358]. 32. In some of the recent decisions, including Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2020, 22 February 2023], this Court has viewed that transfer of a criminal case from one state to another implicitly reflects upon the credibility of not only the State Judiciary but also of the prosecution agency.” 5. It is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that jurisdiction to transfer a case can only be exercised in exceptional cases where the fair trial would be prejudiced. In the present case, the complaint is listed for 7 recording the petitioner’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. The petitioner has not quoted a single instance which would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he would not get justice from the Court. The respondent's statement has been recorded, and there is not even a whisper in the petition that the Court was unfair while recording the respondent’s statement or had prevented the petitioner from putting any relevant question to the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner’s apprehension is not substantiated by any material on record. 6. In Balram Sharma (supra), the advocates had refused to appear before the Court and the petitioners remained unrepresented. Therefore, this Court was constrained to transfer the matter to some other Court to ensure justice to the parties. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that any advocate has refused to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 7. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for the transfer of the complaint pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, 8 H.P. Hence, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 8. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 14th September, 2026. Judge. (Ravinder)