Presence Of Deceased's Relative As Court Staff Or Lawyer Not Ground To Transfer Criminal Trial: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order refusing to transfer a criminal trial from a Magistrate's court, merely because a son of the deceased was on the Magistrate's ministerial staff and another son was a practising advocate. Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that merely because a relative of the deceased is employed in a ministerial capacity does not give rise to the presumption that the presiding officer would be influenced. The bench observed; "A Court Reader, being a ministerial staff, has no adjudicatory role in the decision-making process. Merely because a relative of the deceased is working in a ministerial capacity in the Court does not, in any manner, lead to a presumption that the Presiding Officer would be influenced in discharge of judicial functions". The petition was filed challenging the order of the District Court upholding the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's plea for transfer. The counsel for the petitioner contended that an FIR was registered for the offence of causing death by rash and negligent driving (Section 304A of IPC). After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the trial was initiated. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for transfer of the petition, contending that the son of the deceased (respondent no 2) was working as a court reader in the same court, and another son of the deceased was a practising advocate. Thus, the petitioner contended that due to the influence of the sons of the deceased, no local counsel was willing to represent the case.The bench noted that the grounds raised by the petition are not tenable for ordering a transfer of a criminal trial. The fact that the son of the deceased is a court reader, being a ministerial staff member, does not have any bearing on the decision-making process. Merely because a relative of the deceased is working in a ministerial capacity, it does not lead to the presumption of influence on the presiding officer. Similarly, the bench highlighted that another son practising as an advocate cannot warrant transfer of the case, as any allegation of influence by the said advocate could be raised before the State Bar Council. Therefore, the same also does not raise the presumption that the Presiding officer would be influenced or that the trial could not be conducted fairly. The bench held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any evidence to show that the respondents are in a position to influence the Presiding Officer. The bench also emphasized that the transfer of a criminal case is an extraordinary power and must be used sparingly. Thus, the apprehension must not only be genuine but also supported by tangible evidence. Further, the court observed that, "The judicial conscience is not so fragile as to be influenced by the presence of a staff member or a practicing Advocate in the same Court. Moreover, the judicial system is structured with inbuilt safeguards and supervisory mechanisms; any deviation from the path of fairness and propriety invites correction at the hands of superior Courts. Thus, the majesty of law stands insulated from such unfounded apprehensions". Thus, the bench dismissed the petition. Case Title: Himanshu Katare v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-54491-2025]For Petitioner: Advocate Shivam HazariFor State: Advocate Manoj Kumar Singh For Respondent no 2: Advocate Pramod Singh TomarClick here to read/download the Order

Presence Of Deceased's Relative As Court Staff Or Lawyer Not Ground To Transfer Criminal Trial: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

"Judicial conscience is not so fragile as to be influenced by the presence of a staff member or a practicing Advocate in the same Court."

Tags