IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 AJAYPAL SINGH ......Petitioner Versus KOMALPREET KAUR .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Suneel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of case bearing No.MNT125/39/2023, titled as ‘Komalpreet Kaur versus Ajaypal Singh’ filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Mukerian, District Hoshhiarpur, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25.01.2022 as per Sikh rites and rituals. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes ensued between both the parties, leading to the filing of the present complaint by the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as the respondent have been residing in Gurdaspur, and even the marriage took place in Gurdaspur, thus the Court at Mukerian has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the distance inter se said Gurdaspur and Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur is approximately 200 Kilometers. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the complaint bearing No.MNT125/39/2023 be transferred before any other competent Court in Gurdaspur.

3. The present petition is decided in limine in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from one criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court , to meet the ends of justice.

22. It is, however, the trite law that power under Section 406 Criminal Procedure Code has to be construed strictly and is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. It needs little emphasis that a prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well- substantiated apprehension that just