Prasanna Kasini vs The State Of Telangana

2026 INSC 30 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025)

Prasanna Kasini …Appellant Versus

The State of Telangana & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, the wife, is aggrieved with the

impugned judgment by which, on the request of the

husband, the second respondent herein, the proceedings

in C.C. No.136 of 2023, initiated on the complaint of the

appellant, pending in the file of the learned Additional

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy was transferred

to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,

Signature Not Verified Hyderabad. The wife, impleaded as respondent there, had Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.01.06 18:07:19 IST Reason: not appeared in the matter. The impugned order directed

Page 1 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 transmission of the case within one month from the date of

receipt of the impugned order with intimation to the other

side.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently

argued that the ex parte order of transfer was unmindful of

the travails of a woman left alone with two children to

prosecute a case at a location distant from her hometown. It

is also contended that the facts of the case unfold a

reprehensible deceitful conduct on the part of the husband

which further should have restrained the High Court from

transferring the case. It is also specifically pointed out that

the allegation of bias on which the transfer petition was

filed was based on the fact that a relative of the wife was

employed as a Junior Assistant in the District Court at

Sangareddy and another relative was working as Head

Constable in the Women Police Station at Sangareddy,

where the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First

Class was situated. The bias alleged was the influence

exerted by the above two. It is specifically pointed out

from Annexure P-1 in the rejoinder that the Junior Assistant

Page 2 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 was transferred from the District Court under which the

Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class was

functioning.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband

specifically referred to the counter affidavit filed wherein it

was stated that the appellant’s brother-in-law is a Head

Constable in the Sangareddy Police Station and her sister-

in-law who is a Senior Assistant in the District Court at

Sangareddy along with her brothers, who are politicians

were influencing the police and the Court staff,

perpetrating harassment on the husband, the second

respondent herein.

5. On facts, we cannot but notice some which are

relevant to understand what transpired between the

parties, though the subject matter is only a transfer

effected. The appellant and the second respondent were

married in the year 2007 and they proceeded to the United

States of America where the second respondent was

working. They returned to India later and it is the

contention of the appellant that due to persistent mental

Page 3 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 cruelty and harassment, a crime was registered at the

Raidurgam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and as a

counterblast in the year 2010, the second respondent filed

a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ranga

Reddy District. In 2011, a settlement was reached, on the

mediation of elders and the parties joined together. A

compromise was entered into which was produced in an

application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 by the husband, against the criminal

proceedings pending against him, as initiated by the wife,

which was allowed by an order dated 13.02.2013 as is

evident from Annexure P-2. However, the husband

surreptitiously continued the proceedings of divorce and

Annexure P-1 order of divorce was obtained on 13.02.2013

which was never brought to the notice of the wife;

especially when Annexure P-2 was passed six days later to

the order of divorce, which was not disclosed.

6. After joining husband in USA in 2014, appellant gave

birth to a male child on 16.10.2015 at USA and a female

child on 14.09.2016 in India. In the year 2022, the wife

Page 4 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 along with the children returned to India and started living

with the husband’s family from where she was

unceremoniously evicted by the brother-in-law, is the

contention. The wife, it is asserted was made aware of the

divorce granted by the Family Court only through a legal

notice issued against the appellant, by her brother-in-law

on 16.08.2022 which notice is produced as Annexure P-3. In

the meanwhile, the appellant had also registered another

FIR at the Women Police Station, Sangareddy which has led

to criminal proceedings, now transferred. The appellant

on coming to know of the ex parte order of the Family

Court, granting divorce, approached the High Court with

an appeal wherein by Annexure P-7, the delay of 2709 days

in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter is said to

be pending.

7. 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. Be that as it may, we are now only

concerned with the transfer of the case from Sangareddy to

Page 5 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 Hyderabad. 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. We would not dwell upon whether the wife had

received the notice issued or not, but we notice that in the

overall circumstances and the reasons stated for raising the

ground of bias the transfer was not justified.

8. Primarily, 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, especially when the adjudication is carried

out by the Judge. 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 coming within the jurisdiction of

the Court and/or another relative is working in the District

Court itself. Further, as has been pointed out by the

learned counsel for the appellant-wife, the lady who was

working as Junior Assistant has already been transferred.

9. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the

husband, the second respondent would contend that he

Page 6 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 faced serious threat to life at Sangareddy where the wife’s

people are influential. The second respondent who is an

accused in the proceedings could seek for appearance

through a counsel or by video conferencing, during the

pendency of the case 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.

10. We are of the opinion that the order of the High Court

cannot at all be sustained, especially on the grounds raised

of bias which we find to be inconsequential. If transfer has

been effected to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,

Hyderabad, the case registered on transfer of C.C. No.136

of 2023 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Sangareddy shall immediately be transferred back to the

Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, if

the matter is still pending and if it has been closed on any

grounds, including the default of the complainant to appear

before the transferred-Court, the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate shall restore the proceedings and transfer it

Page 7 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025 back to the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Sangareddy, without any fail.

11. We make it clear that the observations made in the

judgment are not on the merits of the case but are only in

adjudication of the transfer petition and would not govern

the final adjudication of the matter, which has to be on the

basis of evidence led in the case.

12. The transfer as above shall be carried out within a

month. The parties shall appear before the Additional

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy on 16.02.2026,

which appearance shall be permitted even through

counsel.

13. The appeal stands allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

….…..….…..……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

….…..….…..……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI JANUARY 06, 2026.

Page 8 of 8 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.7038 of 2025