‘Totally Reckless’: Allahabad HC Slaps Rs 1 Lakh Cost Over Baseless Allegations Against Judge

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a transfer application filed by two accused persons in a criminal complaint case from Jhansi, imposing an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh for making what it described as reckless and baseless allegations against the trial court judge.

Court also took strong exception to the filing of an affidavit alleging judicial impropriety without any support from the record, warning against attempts to scandalise the judiciary under the guise of seeking transfer.

The transfer application was moved by Shyam Sundar and Om Prakash, who are facing trial in a private complaint filed by Hari Shankar under Sections 387 (extortion), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint is pending before the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

The accused were summoned in the case on August 6, 2025. They challenged the summoning order before the high court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponds to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of the proceedings. On November 15, 2025, a coordinate bench of the high court declined to quash the case, holding that disputed questions of fact were involved and that no case of abuse of process was made out at that stage.

However, the high court granted liberty to the accused to move an application for discharge at the appropriate stage and directed the trial court to decide such an application within six weeks of its filing. As an interim protection, court ordered that no coercive measures be taken against the accused till the discharge application was decided.

Despite this liberty, the accused did not file a discharge application. The trial court, noting that the stage for considering discharge had arrived, directed them on December 11, 2025 to file the application. A similar direction was reiterated on December 18, 2025, as the accused continued to avoid filing the discharge plea.

Instead of availing the remedy granted by the high court, the accused moved the present transfer application under Section 447 BNSS (corresponds to Section 407 CrPC). They alleged that the presiding officer of the trial court was acting “in haste and under pressure” from the complainant’s brother, who is a practising advocate at the Jhansi district court. It was claimed that the advocate had met the judge in chambers and, on his persuasion, non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused on November 5, 2025.

The State strongly opposed the transfer plea, arguing that the allegations were wholly unsupported by the trial court record and were intended only to delay the proceedings. The State also pointed out that the non-bailable warrant order was passed even before the high court granted interim protection on November 15, 2025, and that the accused had failed to explain their continued refusal to file a discharge application.

After examining the record, Justice Samit Gopal held that the allegations made in paragraph 14 of the transfer application were “totally reckless and without any basis.” Court noted that the affidavit containing these allegations was sworn on the basis of “perusal of records,” yet the record did not indicate any meeting between the complainant’s brother and the presiding officer, nor did it suggest that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was influenced by any extraneous considerations.

Dismissing the transfer application, the high court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the accused, directing that the amount be deposited before the trial court and transmitted to the District Legal Services Committee. Court further ordered recovery of the amount as land revenue in case of default.

Separately, court also expressed concern over the illegibility of the non-bailable warrant order dated November 5, 2025, observing that apart from the date and the word “N.B.W.,” nothing in the order could be deciphered.

Taking note of repeated directions issued to trial courts to ensure legible orders, the high court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi, to bring the issue to the notice of the concerned trial court and ensure compliance.

The matter has been directed to be placed before the court again after submission of a compliance report.

Case Title: Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of U.P. and another

Order Date: February 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Samit Gopal