Transfer petitions dismissed when grounds like short adjournments and failed self-initiated settlements lack merit and do not show bias.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Niranjhan For Respondent : Mr.K.Manikandan ORDER The petitioner/accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S.T.C.No.8335 of 2024 before the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has filed a transfer petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2026 in S.T.C.No.8335 of 2024. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai by impugned order dated 10.03.2026 dismissed the petition, against which, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner questioned the premature closure of the cross examination and filed a petition for recall of PW1, which was dismissed, against which, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.8219 of 2026 before this Court. He further submitted that in the transfer application, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai initially granted interim stay on 03.01.2026, thereafter, instead of proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai engaged the parties in repeated in-chamber discussions forcing settlement. Earlier, the petitioner requested the matter be referred to mediation through the Mediation Centre, but the trial Judge conducted mediation which failed and thereafter proceeded with the trial. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on 24.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 heard the parties in the chamber forcing for a settlement. Further the case was listed under the caption for “reporting settlement or arguments”. On 10.03.2026, the settlement could not be finalised since the petitioner was unable to arrange the funds required within the time indicated. Further, the respondent was demanding more and above the cheque amount. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai declined the matter for neutral mediation instead personally engaged in settlement discussions. The impugned order is a non-speaking order which does not disclose any reason or application of mind. It is settled requirement of law that the judicial order must contain reason, hence, by this ground, the impugned order to be set aside and the case to be transferred from the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai to some other Court.

3.On the submissions and on perusal of the materials and impugned order, it is seen that initially the complaint filed by the respondent before the Fast Track Court-II Magistrate Court, Allikulam and later on administrative ground, the case transferred to the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai during September 2025. The petitioner on 19.12.2025 sought for adjournment on account of ill-health, thereafter, the matter adjourned to 26.12.2025. On that date, the petitioner’s counsel filed an application seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent and to reopen her evidence for further cross examination on the ground that the cross- examination remained incomplete. This application was posted for counter on 02.01.2026 and the adjournment granted for a short date. Normally the Courts grant two weeks time for filing counter. This short adjournment causes doubt and the petitioner’s apprehension is that the trial Court is not giving fair opportunity.

4.It is further seen that the case posted for cross examination on 31.10.2025. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 05.11.2025 and subsequently to 07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025 the petitioner cross examined the respondent at length and then sought further time for further cross examination without any reason. The trial Court finding the petitioner’s request is without any valid reason and to protract the trial, decli