In a significant ruling touching upon fairness in criminal trials and the limits of transfer petitions, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court order that shifted a matrimonial criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad without hearing the complainant wife. The top court found the transfer unjustified and directed that the case be restored to the original trial court.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Prasanna Kasini, who challenged a High Court order transferring her criminal complaint (C.C. No.136 of 2023) from the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
The transfer was sought by her husband, alleging bias because two of the wife’s relatives were employed in Sangareddy-one as a police head constable and another as court staff. The High Court allowed the transfer ex parte, meaning without the wife’s participation, and directed the case to be moved within a month.
Aggrieved, the wife approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the order ignored her practical difficulties as a woman caring for two children and relied on unsubstantiated allegations of influence.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court briefly traced the troubled history between the parties. Married in 2007, the couple had lived in the United States before returning to India. Multiple criminal and matrimonial proceedings followed, including earlier allegations of cruelty and a divorce decree obtained by the husband in 2013, which the wife claimed was concealed from her.
The bench noted that the wife had later succeeded in getting a long delay condoned to challenge that divorce decree, and that criminal proceedings initiated by her were still pending. While these facts were not central to the transfer issue, the court observed that the husband’s conduct raised serious questions that could not be ignored lightly.
Read also:- Bombay High Court restrains former franchisee from using Jawed Habib trademark after franchise expiry
Court’s Observations on Bias Allegations
At the heart of the judgment was the question of judicial bias. The Supreme Court made it clear that allegations of bias must rest on solid grounds, not assumptions.
“The mere fact that a relative of a party works in a police station or in the district court cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of bias,” the bench observed. It underlined that judicial decisions are taken by judges, not by court staff or police personnel.
The court also took note of the wife’s submission that one of the relatives cited as a reason for bias had already been transferred out of the district. In such circumstances, the bench held, the High Court should not have ordered the transfer-especially without hearing the wife. Prasanna Kasini
Addressing the husband’s claim that he feared for his safety if the trial continued in Sangareddy, the Supreme Court offered practical alternatives. It noted that the accused could appear through counsel or video conferencing, and if physical presence was required, he could seek police protection from the trial court.
“The remedy is not to uproot the proceedings but to ensure safety and fair participation,” the bench remarked in substance, stressing that convenience and apprehension must be balanced against the complainant’s rights.
Final Decision of the Supreme Court
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed that the criminal case be transferred back to the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy.
If the case had been closed meanwhile due to non-appearance after transfer, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad was instructed to restore it and send it back without delay. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the transfer issue and would not affect the merits of the criminal trial.
The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Sangareddy court on 16 February 2026, either personally or through counsel.
Case Title: Prasanna Kasini v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case No.: Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Transfer of Proceedings)
Decision Date: 6 January 2026
