CRM-M-39191-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (184) CRM-M-39191-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.07.2026 ASHWANI SYAL … Petitioner Versus GAURAV SIWACH ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 447 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking transfer of Complaint No. NACT/676/2024 (CNR No. HRPK03-013924-2024), instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 06.07.2024, presently pending before the Court of Ms. Manmeet Kaur Ghuman, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that he may not receive a fair and impartial trial before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the proceedings are being conducted in a manner prejudicial GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39191-2026 (O&M) -:2:- to the petitioner and that the learned Magistrate has been granting adjournments at unusually short intervals while adopting an unduly stringent approach against the defence. It is argued that on 07.05.2026, when the complainant tendered his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit and a copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a short adjournment to prepare for the cross- examination of the complainant. However, the learned trial Court declined the said request and insisted upon immediate cross-examination. Although the matter was ultimately adjourned, costs of 500/- ₹ were imposed upon the petitioner. It is contended that, as a matter of established practice, where examination-in-chief is tendered by way of affidavit, the cross- examination is ordinarily deferred to the next date of hearing. 2.1. It is further submitted that on 30.05.2026, when learned counsel for the petitioner expressed readiness to cross-examine another prosecution witness, namely Neetu, the learned trial Court insisted that the complainant must first be cross-examined before any other witness could be taken up. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias against the petitioner, thereby warranting transfer of the complaint to a competent Court at Chandigarh or, in the alternative, Mohali. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the paper-book. 4. Upon a thoughtful consideration of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The mere circumstance that the learned Judicial Magistrate insisted upon the cross-examination of the complainant GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39191-2026 (O&M) -:3:- on the date when his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit was tendered, or that the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to be cross-examined before the other prosecution witnesses, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, constitute a circumstance giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias or partiality against the petitioner. Such procedural directions fall squarely within the domain of judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court for the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings. 4.1. Equally devoid of merit is the contention that the imposition of nominal costs while granting an adjournment reflects prejudice against the petitioner. Such an order is purely discretionary and intended to regulate the proceedings and discourage avoidable delays. The petitioner has failed to place on record any material demonstrating that the learned trial Court has acted with bias, prejudice, or in a manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. 4.2. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the proceedings arise out of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, wherein the legislative intent is to ensure expeditious disposal of the complaint. The endeavour of the learned trial Court to proceed with the cross-examination of the complainant at the earliest opportunity is, therefore, fully in consonance with the spirit and object of the statute and cannot be construed as indicative of any unfairness or predisposition against the petitioner. 4.3. The submission that the sister of the respondent-complainant is posted at Nuh is wholly inconsequential and has no bearing whatsoever GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39191-2026 (O&M) -:4:- on the impartiality or independence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula. The incidents narrated in the petition, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose any exceptional or compelling circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary power of transfer vested in this Court. 4.4. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant has no vested right to choose the forum of trial according to his own convenience or preference. Transfer of a criminal proceeding cannot be ordered on mere conjectures, unfounded apprehensions, or subjective perceptions of bias. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and only where there exists a genuine and reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done. No such circumstance is made out in the present case. 4.5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint pending before the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.21 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document