1 CGHC010307922026 2026:CGHC:36049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 20 of 2026 1 - Ashutosh Mishra S/o Shri Ganesh Prashad Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o Behind Dusshera Maidan, Gaurav Path, Near Shani Mandir, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Khileshwar Jaiswal S/o Bharatlal Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years R/o Main Road, Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 11, Baloda Bazar, P.S. City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Satyam Shukla S/o Pramod Shukla Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Behind Brass Industry, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Judge, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The present petition under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) has been preferred seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 131/2025, State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Ashutosh Mishra & Ors., pending before the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.), to any other competent Court in the same division for its fair and proper trial. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 195/2026, Ashutosh Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the prayer for transfer of the aforesaid Sessions Case was rejected. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the Respondent/Complainant preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a direction for investigation against the present petitioners at Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, in respect of the allegations punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to which the offence was registered and the matter is being tried as Sessions Case No. 131/2025, titled “State of Chhattisgarh Versus Ashutosh Mishra & Others”; that, during the pendency of the said Sessions Trial, the prosecution filed an application for taking certain documents on record on 09.04.2026, a copy of which was supplied to the petitioners on 15.04.2026, and despite the same, the learned trial Court allowed the said 3 application vide order dated 09.04.2026, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioners and, according to them, reflecting a prejudicial approach in favour of the prosecution, that, being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 448(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in MJC (Criminal) No. 195/2026, titled “Ashutosh Mishra & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh”, and that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order as well as the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Sessions Case No. 131/2025, the petitioners have preferred the present petition before this Court seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. Hence, the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in MJC (Criminal) No. 195/2026 is contrary to the settled principles of law and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, hence, there is no legal impediment in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that from the record of the learned trial Court, it is apparent that the proceedings are being conducted in a prejudicial manner, as the prosecution’s application for taking additional documents on record in Sessions Case No. 131/2025, 4 annexed as Annexure P-3, was allowed without affording the petitioners an opportunity to file their reply. He also submits that the order sheet dated 29.07.2026 further reflects that the petitioners were shown absent despite their presence before the learned trial Court and their signatures being recorded on the order sheet. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/State opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. Section 447 BNSS empowers this Court to transfer a case only when a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, a complex question of law arises, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of all parties and witnesses. 8. From perusal of the order sheet dated 09.04.2026, it appears that on the said date, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution seeking summoning and tagging of the original record of Complaint Case Filing No. 121/2024, instituted by the complainant, namely, Akash Sahu, before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar. It was stated therein that the said complaint case contained the original complaint and other documents relating to the same incident, on the basis of which the present First Information Report had subsequently been registered pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the 5 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar. The learned trial Court, taking note of the fact that the original documents were relevant for adjudication of the Sessions Case, directed that the record of the said complaint case be called for and, accordingly, deferred the remaining examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness till receipt of the said record. It is true that there appears to be some discrepancy in the manner in which the proceedings have been recorded in the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, particularly with regard to the presence of the accused persons and the proceedings relating to the application for summoning the original record. However, such discrepancy, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient ground to hold that the learned trial Court has acted with any prejudicial approach against the petitioners or that the petitioners cannot expect a fair and impartial trial before the said Court. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the record which was sought to be called for and connected with the present Sessions Case pertains to a complaint case arising out of the same incident. The original complaint and the documents annexed thereto form part of the material relating to the genesis of the prosecution case and are, therefore, relevant for a proper and effective adjudication of the Sessions Case. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court cannot be said to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in directing that the record of the connected complaint case be called for and tagged with the record of the present 6 Sessions Case. At the same time, the learned trial Court is expected to exercise due care and caution while recording the proceedings and passing orders, so that there remains no ambiguity or discrepancy in the order sheets, particularly with regard to the presence of the accused persons and their respective counsel. The learned trial Court shall ensure that such discrepancies do not recur in future and that the proceedings are recorded strictly in accordance with the actual proceedings conducted before it. 10. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the circumstances brought on record by the petitioners do not disclose any such reasonable apprehension of denial of a fair trial as would warrant exercise of the power of transfer under Section 447(2) of the BNSS. Mere irregularity or discrepancy in recording the proceedings, without anything more to demonstrate actual prejudice or bias on the part of the learned trial Court, cannot be made the basis for transferring the Sessions Case. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 195/2026. The prayer made by the petitioners for transfer of Sessions Case No. 131/2025, pending before the Court of the 7 learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, is accordingly rejected. 12. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. 13. However, before parting with the matter, it is observed that the learned trial Court concerned shall ensure that the proceedings are conducted strictly in accordance with law and that the order sheets accurately reflect the presence of the parties and the proceedings conducted on each date. The learned trial Court concerned shall also take due care that no such discrepancy as noticed herein occurs in the future. 14. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil