Case Summary: Sudesh Chhikara v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2025) | Scope of Magistrate’s Power to Transfer Cases

The present case, Sudesh Chhikara v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2025), involves a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), West Delhi in Case M-17/2024 titled Baljeet Singh v. Sudesh Chhikara. The impugned order directed the transfer of a complaint case from the court of MM-07, West, Tis Hazari Court to the court of MM-02 (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, where another connected matter was pending adjudication between the same parties.

Background and Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, Sudesh Chhikara, is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2, Baljeet Singh.
2. The dispute stems from a series of matrimonial conflicts between the petitioner and the son of Respondent No. 2.
3. Several litigations were ongoing between the parties, including the present complaint case.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed a transfer application before the ACMM, West Delhi, seeking the transfer of CC No. 6895/2019 from the court of MM-07, West Delhi to MM-02 (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
5. The ACMM allowed the transfer without issuing prior notice to the petitioner, prompting the present petition under Section 528 BNSS.

Issue

Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has the authority under Section 410 CrPC or Section 450 BNSS to transfer a case from one Metropolitan Magistrate to another without explicit statutory authority.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner challenged the order on the following grounds:

Lack of Jurisdiction:

The petitioner argued that under Section 410 CrPC and Section 450 BNSS, the power to transfer cases between magistrates within the same jurisdiction rests only with the Sessions Judge or the High Court—not with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Procedural Impropriety:

The ACMM failed to issue a notice or provide an opportunity for the petitioner to present her case before transferring the matter, violating natural justice principles.

Misuse of Power:

The transfer of cases under Section 410 CrPC and Section 450 BNSS is an administrative function. It does not empower the CMM or ACMM to transfer cases based on a party’s request.

Distribution of Business v. Transfer of Cases:

Under Section 19(3) of CrPC and Section 13(2) of BNSS, the CMM is empowered to allocate business among Metropolitan Magistrates but not to transfer cases between them.

Precedents and Legal Authority:

The petitioner relied on several judgments, including R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 675, which held that an ACMM does not have the power to transfer cases.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, represented by Mr. Baljit Singh, argued the following:

Convenience and Expediency:

Since a connected matter (MC No. 533/2020) was pending before MM-02 (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Courts, the transfer was necessary to avoid conflicting judgments and procedural complications.

Authority of the ACMM:

The ACMM, by virtue of Section 10(2) BNSS, has the same powers as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and can thus transfer cases for effective administration of justice.

No Prejudice Caused:

The transfer did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as both cases involved similar parties and issues.

Role of Amicus Curiae

The Court appointed Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal as Amicus Curiae to assist in resolving the legal issue. He provided a detailed analysis of the statutory framework under both CrPC, 1973 and BNSS, 2023 and supported the petitioner’s view that the ACMM lacked the authority to transfer cases administratively.

Statutory Framework and Relevant Provisions

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

Section 410 CrPC – Allows the Chief Judicial Magistrate to withdraw or recall a case made over to a subordinate magistrate.

Section 407 CrPC – Grants the High Court the power to transfer cases when it is expedient in the interest of justice.

Section 408 CrPC – Allows the Sessions Judge to transfer cases within his jurisdiction.

Under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):

Section 450 BNSS – Replicates Section 410 CrPC and allows the Chief Judicial Magistrate to withdraw or recall cases but not transfer them.

Section 448 BNSS – Provides that the Sessions Judge has the authority to transfer cases within his jurisdiction.

Section 446 BNSS – Grants the Supreme Court the authority to transfer cases from one High Court to another.

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation

The Court examined several judgments:

1. R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd. (2023) 1 SCC 675: Held that the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are at par for judicial functions but not for administrative functions.
2. M/s Radical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Padmanabh T.G (Karnataka HC): Ruled that the CMM cannot transfer cases based on party requests—such powers are only with the High Court and Sessions Judge.
3. A.K. Singh, Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Virendra Kumar Jain (MP HC): Held that the power under Section 410 CrPC is administrative, not judicial.
4. Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandbhai Sharma v. State of Gujarat (Gujarat HC): Clarified that transfer of cases is a judicial function requiring the intervention of the High Court or Sessions Judge.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

Legislative Intent:

The legislature intentionally conferred the power of case transfer only on the Supreme Court, High Court, and Sessions Judge.

Section 450 BNSS and Section 410 CrPC limit the power of CMM to withdraw or recall cases—not transfer.

Role of ACMM:

The ACMM has judicial parity with the CMM but lacks administrative authority to transfer cases unless expressly authorized by the High Court under Section 10(2) BNSS.

Violation of Natural Justice:

The ACMM’s failure to issue notice before passing the transfer order was a breach of procedural fairness.

Court’s Decision

The Court held:

The ACMM acted beyond its jurisdiction in transferring the case.

The order dated 07.06.2024 was set aside.

Respondent No. 2 was granted liberty to approach the Principal District and Sessions Judge under Section 448 BNSS for transfer of the case.

The Registrar General was directed to circulate the judgment among judicial officers.

Conclusion

The Court clarified that the power to transfer cases is limited to the Supreme Court, High Court, and Sessions Court. The judgment reaffirmed the administrative and judicial limits of magistrates under the CrPC (now BNSS).

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment                                                                                                            

Important Link