Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case

“We cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station or a Junior Assistant in Court” – Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Prasanna Kasini v. State of Telangana & Anr., setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had allowed the transfer of a criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad at the instance of the husband. The apex court held that allegations of bias stemming from the employment of the complainant-wife's relatives in the local police station and district court do not constitute sufficient ground for transfer, especially in the absence of concrete material to show any influence on the adjudicatory process.

The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled in favour of the appellant-wife and directed restoration of the criminal proceedings back to the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class (AJFC), Sangareddy. The Court sharply criticised the High Court for having allowed the transfer ex parte and failing to properly consider the factual matrix, including the husband's conduct and the lack of any substantial evidence to justify apprehension of bias.

Ex Parte Transfer on Allegations of Bias is Unsustainable: “High Court Erred in Granting Transfer Without Hearing the Wife”

The case arose from proceedings in C.C. No. 136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the wife against the husband. The Telangana High Court, acting on a plea by the husband, had transferred the case from Sangareddy to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally, Hyderabad. The husband's plea cited alleged apprehension of bias due to the employment of the wife’s relatives—one as a Head Constable in the local Women Police Station and another as a Junior Assistant in the Sangareddy District Court.

However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this reasoning. “It cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband,” the Court observed. It stressed that judicial independence must be presumed and that the functioning of judges cannot be doubted merely because a party’s relative is in an administrative role within the court's jurisdiction.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the High Court had granted the transfer without hearing the wife. “We do not think that the High Court appreciated the issue properly, especially since the learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of hearing the wife,” said the Court. This procedural lapse, coupled with the weak factual foundation of the husband's claims, rendered the High Court's order “unsustainable”.

Husband’s Own Conduct Under Scrutiny: Divorce Decree Obtained Without Informing Wife After Settlement

In the background of the transfer plea was a troubling history of litigation between the parties. The couple had married in 2007 and lived in the United States before returning to India. The wife alleged persistent cruelty leading to criminal proceedings against the husband. In 2011, following a settlement, the parties had reconciled, and a compromise was filed by the husband under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.

Yet, in what the Court described as “reprehensible deceit,” the husband simultaneously pursued his pending divorce petition and obtained an ex parte divorce decree on February 13, 2013—just six days before the compromise order was passed by the High Court in the Section 482 proceedings. The wife came to know of the divorce only in 2022, when she received a legal notice from her brother-in-law. She then filed an appeal with a delay of 2709 days, which was condoned by the High Court.

“We cannot but notice that prima facie, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband employed reprehensible deceit on the wife cannot be easily brushed aside,” the Supreme Court remarked. It added that while the merits of the divorce appeal were not under consideration, the husband’s conduct certainly undermined his claim for transfer on the grounds of fairness or fear of bias.

Security Concerns? Video Conferencing or Counsel Appearance Available: Court Provides Alternative Remedies

Addressing the husband's plea of personal safety threats in Sangareddy, the Court categorically held that perceived threats, unsupported by objective evidence, do not justify a transfer. Instead, it noted that alternate remedies were available.

“The accused in the proceedings could seek for appearance through a counsel or by video conferencing… and if at all his presence is required by the Magistrate, he could file an application for providing sufficient protection to appear before the Court which shall be favourably considered by the Magistrate,” the Court clarified.

The bench emphasised that procedural flexibility, including the use of technology and security measures, was available to ensure the participation of parties without compromising the fairness of proceedings or disrupting jurisdiction.

Case Restored to Sangareddy Court – Supreme Court Affirms Need for Neutral, Evidence-Based Transfer Decisions

Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s transfer order. The bench directed that the criminal case, if still pending at the Hyderabad court, must be immediately sent back to Sangareddy. Even if the matter had been closed due to the complainant’s absence, the Magistrate was directed to restore it and proceed afresh. Both parties were directed to appear—personally or through counsel—before the Sangareddy Court on February 16, 2026.

Importantly, the Court made it clear that none of the observations in the judgment would affect the merits of the pending criminal case or the appeal against the divorce decree.

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that transfer of criminal proceedings must be guided by objective standards of fairness, not vague apprehensions or the mere presence of a litigant’s relatives in administrative roles. The judgment also stands as a caution against abuse of procedural remedies by parties seeking to manipulate jurisdiction based on flimsy or fabricated grounds.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026