Court Rules CJM Lacks Jurisdiction to Transfer Cases, Emphasizes Need for Legislative Clarity
In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court, through Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari, quashed a transfer order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Lucknow, which had moved the trial of a criminal case to another court. The decision, delivered on February 5, 2026, underscores the jurisdictional limitations of the CJM in transferring criminal cases, reaffirming that such powers are reserved for the Sessions Judge, High Court, and Supreme Court.
The case involved Nitesh Rastogi, who challenged the CJM's order transferring the trial of "State v. Bijendra Pal Singh and Others" from the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st (A.T.S.), Lucknow, to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Lucknow. The transfer was initially prompted by an application from the accused parties, Bijendra Pal Singh and Rajiv Singh, who faced charges of fraudulent misappropriation of gold jewelry valued at approximately Rs. 3.2 crore.
The High Court's decision was predicated on the statutory provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court meticulously examined the relevant sections, including Sections 13, 212, and 450 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, as well as Sections 15, 192, and 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Tiwari emphasized that the legislative intent clearly reserves the power of case transfer to the higher judiciary, excluding the CJM from such authority.
The judgment also referenced previous rulings that delineate the administrative versus judicial powers of the CJM, highlighting that any distribution or reassignment of judicial work must align with the statutory framework and require prior approval from the District Judge. The court deemed the CJM's transfer order as an overreach of jurisdiction, thus invalidating it.
Citing concerns over the widespread practice of unauthorized case transfers by CJMs across Uttar Pradesh, the High Court directed the Registrar General to issue a circular to rectify the procedural oversight. This directive aims to ensure adherence to statutory provisions and prevent similar jurisdictional errors in the future.
This ruling not only clarifies the boundaries of judicial authority but also serves as a critical reminder of the legislative intent behind the procedural laws governing criminal justice in India.
Bottom Line:
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is not vested with jurisdiction to transfer criminal cases under statutory provisions; such power is conferred exclusively upon the Sessions Judge, High Court, and Supreme Court.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 13, 212, 450; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 15, 192, 410; IPC Sections 406, 419, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471, 411, 170.
Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849804
