IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.01.2026 Ashwani Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus Sanju Bala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking transfer of case bearing No.COMA/7/2025, titled as ‘Sanju Bala versus Ashwani Kumar and others’ filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Taluka Court, Samrala, District Ludhiana to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 02.12.2022. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes ensued between both the parties, leading to the filing of the present complaint by respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.1 has been residing in Ludhiana, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 reside in Mullanpur, New Chandigarh. It is submitted that the petitioners have been residing in Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and the distance inter se said Shri Anandpur Sahib and Samrala, District Ludhiana is approximately 70 Kilometer. Moreover, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, are senior citizen, and are unable to cover the distance. It is further submitted that the brothers of respondent No.1 have criminal antecedents and are involved in criminal cases, thus the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives in Samrala. The petitioner No.1 has filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which is also pending at Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the complaint bearing No. COMA/7/2025 be transferred before any other competent Court in Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

3. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondents and also to save the judicial time of the Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions so advanced.

4. Trite to say that the parameters for transfer of criminal proceedings are quite stringent; and it is imperative for the Courts to exercise their power to do the same sparingly, when the circumstances are such that they would not permit the conduct of a fair and uninfluenced trial. In this regard, a gainful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India , 2011(1) RCR (Criminal ) 120, the relevant paras whereof read thus:

“21. Reverting to the main issue, a true and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution, which declares that :

"21. Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his 'life' or 'personal liberty' except according to procedure established by law."

It needs no emphasis that a criminal trial, which may result in depriving a person of not only his personal liberty but also his life has to be unbiased, and without any prejudice for or against the accused. An impartial and uninfluenced trial is the fundamental requirement of a fair trial, the first and the foremost imperative of the criminal justice delivery system. If a criminal trial is not free and fair, the criminal justice system would undoubtedly be at stake, eroding the confidence of a common man in the system, which would not augur well for the society at large. Therefore, as and when it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a particular trial is likely to be seriously undermined, for any reason whatsoever, Section 406 Criminal Procedure Code empowers this Court to transfer any case or appea