The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined a plea seeking transfer of a criminal trial, holding that mere apprehensions without solid proof cannot justify shifting proceedings from one court to another.
Background of the Case
The case, Himanshu Katare and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, arose from an FIR registered in 2023 under Section 304-A of the IPC, which deals with causing death by negligence. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the trial is currently pending before a court in Sagar district.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging earlier orders of the trial court and the Sessions Court, both of which had rejected their request to transfer the case.
Their main concern was linked to the family of the deceased. One son of the deceased works as a Court Reader in the same court, while another is a practicing advocate there. The petitioners argued that this situation created an atmosphere where local lawyers were unwilling to represent them, affecting their right to a fair trial.
Justice Himanshu Joshi examined the arguments and found them insufficient to justify a transfer.
The Court clarified that a Court Reader performs only administrative duties and has no role in judicial decision-making.
“Merely because a relative of the deceased is working in a ministerial capacity… does not lead to a presumption that the Presiding Officer would be influenced,” the bench observed.
On the issue of the deceased’s son practicing as a lawyer in the same court, the judge noted that this alone cannot be treated as a valid ground for transfer. The Court added that if there were allegations of professional misconduct, the proper forum would be the State Bar Council.
The bench also stressed that allegations must be backed by material evidence.
“Bald and unsubstantiated apprehensions cannot form the basis for transfer of a case,” it remarked.
The Court reiterated that transferring a criminal trial is an exceptional power, to be used only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice will not be served.
It further emphasized the independence of the judiciary. The order noted that judges are bound by their oath and decide cases solely on law and evidence, not on the influence or status of parties involved.
Finding no illegality or error in the earlier orders, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no valid ground for transfer had been made out.
Case Details
Case Title: Himanshu Katare and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: MCRC No. 54491 of 2025
Judge: Justice Himanshu Joshi
Decision Date: March 24, 2026
