Lawyer v. Lawyer: Jharkhand High Court rejects transfer plea in cross-FIR case, says ‘speedy trial not prejudicial’

‘Cross FIRs, trial pending since 2012’

• The petitioner, Tiwari, allegedly had an altercation with Ritu Kumar on the premises of the Jharkhand High Court.
• Both of them lodged First Information Reports (FIRs) against each other at Doranda Police Station in Ranchi.
• The chargesheets were submitted in both cases, and cognisance was also taken and the hearing and trial of both were set on the same day.
• From 2014 onwards, both cases were simultaneously tried before the Ranchi Judicial Magistrate Nutan Ekka till the magistrate’s transfer.
• The cases were listed together till October 31, 2025. Thereafter, both were taken up for separate hearings without recording any reasons.
• The petitioner pointed out that the sudden separation of the two cases and their listing on different dates is arbitrary, particularly in view of the fact that both cases have been listed and heard together since 2014, including during the tenure of the then Judicial Magistrate, Sarthak Sharma.

• He alleged that Ritu Kumar, being the president of the Advocates’ Association of Jharkhand High Court, has been exercising considerable influence within the judicial circle, which has a direct bearing on the manner in which the present criminal cases are being dealt with.
• Tiwari further submitted that the sudden separation of both cases for trial without recording any valid reasons and the consequent closure of his case in a hurried manner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of the court.
• He said that the closure of his case is giving rise to a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he is likely to be denied justice.
• He claimed that the series of orders passed earlier, as well as the manner in which the subsequent orders have been passed, speak for themselves and clearly reflect the manner in which the present case has proceeded.
• The petitioner also mentioned that he intends to file an application for permitting one of them to be examined as a defence witness.
• However, due to the undue haste in fixing successive dates and the manner in which the case is being hurriedly proceeded with, he has developed a reasonable and bona fide apprehension that he may not receive a fair and impartial trial before the learned court.

‘Illegal observation’

• Representing himself, Tiwari argued that the sessions judge also failed to properly appreciate his genuine apprehension for transfer of the case in the facts and circumstances, as well as the manner in which the trial was being proceeded and rejected his prayer for transfer of the case.
• The plea for transfer was rejected by making an illegal observation to conclude the trial within one month, which is fit to be set aside, and both these cases should be transferred to the court of any other judicial magistrate to allow him to get justice.

‘No valid ground for transfer’

• On the contrary, public prosecutor Pankaj Kumar has strenuously argued that there is no legal and valid ground for entertaining these transfer petitions.
• Kumar was surprised that the petitioner was relying upon a speedy trial to be prejudicial and had apprehension in his mind that a fair trial could not be conducted by the concerned court.
• He pointed out that both cases are trial cases instituted in 2012, but still linger for disposal in one way or another.
• The fixing of early dates or even for some time separating one case from another and fixing different dates in the counter case does not amount to a miscarriage of justice or denial of fair and impartial trial.
• The petitioner has simply relied upon some interlocutory orders, causing dissatisfaction to him, but miserably failed to bring on record the material as to how and for what reasons, he is apprehensive of injustice and a fair trial.

‘Speedy trial, no prejudice’

• Recent judgments of the apex court and various high courts have focused on preventing the misuse of transfer powers and ensuring that cases are moved only in exceptional circumstances, the court noted.
• An expeditious trial of the case is the demand of time since instant cases, which are summons trial cases, have been pending since 2012.
• The expeditious approach taken by the court cannot be condemned.
• There is no doubt that for the same occurrence, two cases, respectively, from both sides were instituted and both cases were running in the same court and usually fixed on the same date.
• The grievance of the petitioner against some interlocutory orders may be redressed by him through proper action under law, and the remedy does not lie in the transfer of cases from one court to another, causing further delay in the trial.
• The entire order sheets of both cases do not speak of any allegation of pre-existing bias on the part of the trial court.
• It also does not contain any allegations against the trial court, in which a fair trial of both cases is not possible.
• Merely a case and cross-case for some date fixed on different dates does not cause prejudice to any of the parties.
• Mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with some interlocutory orders passed in the case is not sufficient to transfer the petitions.
• There is no reasonable apprehension to be entertained based on sufficient materials that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held by the trial court concerned.
• The transfer petitions are rejected since the ends of justice would not allow the pleas.