Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case

"The petitioner herself filed a memo to settle the issue and requested the matter be referred to mediation — she did not appear before the mediation, but now questions the procedures", Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal original petition seeking transfer of a cheque dishonour case, holding that an accused who voluntarily sought referral to Lok Adalat, then skipped the proceedings entirely, cannot thereafter raise an apprehension of denial of justice to seek transfer of the case to another court.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, while affirming the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, made pointed observations about the conduct of the petitioner-accused, who had filed a memo requesting settlement and Lok Adalat referral, failed to appear before the Lok Adalat, and subsequently turned around to challenge the very court procedures she had initially invoked.

The respondent-complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner-accused before the Fast Track Court-II Magistrate Court, Allikulam. The case was subsequently transferred on administrative grounds to the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in September 2025. The petitioner then filed a transfer application before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, which was dismissed by order dated 10.03.2026. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to justify transfer of the case on the ground of apprehension of denial of justice, particularly arising from the trial court's conduct of settlement discussions and grant of short adjournments.

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the chronology of events before the trial court and found the petitioner's conduct to be fundamentally inconsistent with the grounds now urged before it.

The Court noted that on 07.11.2025, the petitioner had cross-examined the respondent-complainant at length and thereafter sought further time for additional cross-examination without assigning any valid reason. The trial court, finding the request to be without justification and intended merely to protract the trial, declined to grant further time and posted the matter for questioning the accused under Section 313 of the Code.

It was at this precise juncture that the petitioner filed a memo expressing willingness to settle and praying that the matter be referred to Lok Adalat. The case was accordingly referred to Lok Adalat on 13.12.2025. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Lok Adalat. No settlement was arrived at, and the case was sent back to the court.

The Court found this sequence of events to be decisive. "The petitioner herself filed a memo to settle the issue with the respondent and requested the matter be referred to mediation — she did not appear before the mediation, but now questions the procedures and for granting short adjournments by the trial Court and filing a transfer application on the ground that there is an apprehension of denial of justice, are improper."

The High Court also took note of the fact that a co-ordinate bench had, by order dated 07.04.2026, already dismissed the related Criminal Original Petition filed by the same petitioner challenging the denial of further cross-examination of the complainant. The trial court's decision to close the cross-examination, having found the request for further time to be without valid reason and intended to protract proceedings, had thus been independently upheld.

On the petitioner's contention that the trial Judge ought to have referred the matter to a neutral mediation centre rather than personally conducting settlement discussions, the Court found that all relevant facts had been correctly captured and answered in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, which had relied upon the Supreme Court's authoritative judgment in Indian Bank Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 590, governing the conduct of cheque dishonour cases.

"In view of the above, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to transfer the case are unsustainable and do not merit consideration. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order," Justice Nirmal Kumar held, dismissing the petition and affirming the Sessions Judge's order dated 10.03.2026 in its entirety.

The judgment underscores the well-settled principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate — having invoked the settlement mechanism and failed to honour it, an accused cannot subsequently convert that very process into a ground for alleging bias or apprehension of prejudice against the same court.

Date of Decision: 15.04.2026