The Allahabad High Court dismissed a transfer plea and imposed Rs 1 lakh costs for reckless allegations against a Jhansi judge. Justice Samit Gopal also criticized an illegible handwritten trial court order, stating only the date and “N.B.W.” were readable.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a transfer application filed by two defendants, imposing a significant cost of Rs 1,00,000 for making “reckless and baseless” allegations against a Presiding Officer of the Jhansi District Court.
Justice Samit Gopal, while rejecting the application, expressed serious concerns about an unreadable order issued by the trial court, noting that aside from the date and the acronym “N.B.W.,” nothing in the handwritten order was understandable.
Background of the Case
The applicants, Shyam Sundar and Om Prakash, approached the High Court under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking the transfer of Complaint Case No. 15951 of 2024 (Hari Shankar Vs. Shyam Sundar and another).
This case, which involves charges under Sections 387, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is currently pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1 / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Earlier, the applicants had challenged a summoning order dated August 6, 2025, but a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court declined to quash the proceedings on November 15, 2025. However, it permitted the applicants to file a discharge application at the appropriate stage, directing the trial court to resolve it within six weeks.
Arguments of Parties:
Counsel for the applicants, Sri Niraj Tiwari, contended that the trial court was acting hastily under the influence of Pushpendra Richhariya, a practicing advocate and brother of the complainant.
In Paragraph 14 of the transfer application, the applicants claimed that the complainant’s brother met with the Presiding Officer in their chamber, alleging that this meeting led the trial court to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against them on November 5, 2025.
They stated that this allegation was based on a “perusal of records.” The applicants further argued that the trial court was pressuring them to file a discharge application prematurely, contrary to the High Court’s directive to file it at an “appropriate stage.”
Opposing the plea, Learned State Counsel Sri Bade Lal Bind argued that the transfer application was merely a strategy to delay the trial. He noted that despite the High Court’s earlier protection and instructions, the applicants had failed to file a discharge application for over two months.
Concerning the allegations of bias, the State contended that the claims in Paragraph 14 were contemptuous. The counsel pointed out that the affidavit asserting these allegations was unsupported by the order dated November 5, 2025, which contained no evidence that the Presiding Officer had met with anyone in their chambers.
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Written Apology After Lawyer Threatens To Commit Suicide in Court
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Upon reviewing the records, Justice Samit Gopal found the allegations against the Presiding Officer to be unsubstantiated.
The Court remarked,
“The allegations in paragraph 14… are without any basis and substance. The said paragraph is sworn on perusal of records by its deponent Om Prakash the applicant no.2. The records do not substantiate any such allegation. Thus, the allegations are totally reckless and without any basis.”
The Court also clarified that, given that the accused had been summoned and directed by the High Court to seek discharge, the proceeding was indeed the “appropriate stage” for such an application, which the applicants had failed to pursue despite numerous opportunities.
The High Court reviewed the certified copy of the trial court’s order dated November 5, 2025 (Annexure-7), that issued the NBW.
The Court strongly criticized the handwriting’s legibility, with Justice Samit Gopal stating,
“Nothing can be read as to what is written in the said order except for the date, month of the said order and the word ‘N.B.W.’ Even the year in which it has been passed is illegible.”
The Court further noted that despite repeated directives for clear writing, the trial court appeared “totally ignorant” and had signed the order without verifying its clarity.
Final order:
The High Court dismissed the transfer application and imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the applicants.
- Payment of Cost: This amount must be deposited in the trial court within 10 days.
- Utilization: The funds will be transferred to the District Legal Services Committee.
- Default: Should the amount remain unpaid, the District Magistrate of Jhansi is instructed to recover it as land revenue.
The Court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Jhansi, to inform the relevant trial court officer about the illegible order. The Registrar (Compliance) is to communicate the order for necessary action, and the District Judge must submit a compliance report within two weeks. The matter is scheduled for a chamber hearing on February 25, 2026, to review the compliance report.
Case Title: Shyam Sundar and another Vs. State of U.P. and another
Read Attachment:
