Rewari Advocates Case Transferred to Jhajjar by High Court After 9 Years

Rewari advocates case transferred to Jhajjar: the Punjab and Haryana High Court moved a 2013 consumer forum complaint against nine lawyers, citing risk of local influence.

North Desk Correspondent

Chandigarh, November 4

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday ordered a criminal complaint filed in 2013 by the then President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, against nine local advocates to be transferred out of Rewari to the courts at Jhajjar. The complaint, lodged on 30 April 2013, has not yet reached the trial stage.

Justice Manisha Batra allowed the petition. The parties have been directed to appear before the transferee court on 25 November 2026.

Rewari Advocates Case: What the complaint alleges

Rewari Advocates Case: According to the order, the complaint relates to incidents between 17 and 22 April 2013. It alleges that some of the accused forcibly entered the retiring room of the Forum’s Presiding Officer after a request made by one of them in a consumer complaint was declined. On the following days, the accused and others allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and locked the Forum’s premises, and damaged the Presiding Officer’s name plate. The complaint further alleges that the then President of the Bar Association rushed towards the complainant to assault him in the presence of police officials.

The complaint invoked Sections 353, 447, 427, 341, 228, 147, 120-B, 506 and 342 read with Section 511 of the IPC. These allegations are yet to be tested in trial, and the High Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits.

A long procedural road

Rewari Advocates Case: The trial court summoned the accused on 15 May 2013. The Rewari Sessions Judge set aside that order on 3 February 2014 in Criminal Revision and sent the matter back for a fresh decision.

On 21 November 2017, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, again summoned the accused, except Hitesh Kumar and Devender Kumar, to face trial under Sections 353, 341, 447, 506 and 120-B IPC. Process against those two was postponed, and an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC into their identity was ordered.

On 15 December 2017, the District Attorney, Rewari, moved an application for a reference to the High Court seeking transfer of the case to another district. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed it the same day, observing that a large number of advocates practising at Rewari were involved and that a reference was in the interest of the accused as well as the complainant. The reference went out on 19 December 2017 and was forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, on 21 December 2017. The High Court’s administrative side directed that it be treated as a transfer petition.

Arguments before the High Court

Rewari Advocates Case: Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg, appearing for Haryana, supported the reference. The State argued that all the accused practise in the Rewari courts and that the complaint arises from disruption of a judicial forum in the same district. Going by the trial court record, it said, the incident was followed by a strike in all courts at Rewari and a law-and-order problem. It also apprehended pressure on the trial court and the prosecuting agency if the trial continued at Rewari.

Opposing the transfer, counsel for the respondents argued that the incident dates to 2013 and the situation at Rewari has since normalised. They said no allegation had been made against the trial court and that a transfer would inconvenience the accused, who practise at Rewari. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, appeared for respondents No. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. Lekh Raj Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, Abhikant Vats and Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocates, appeared for respondents No. 6 and 7. The order records that counsel for respondents 6 and 7 had told the court on 16 August 2023 that efforts were on to resolve the matter amicably.

What the High Court held

The court said the case, being a 2017 reference, is governed by Section 407 of the CrPC, which allows transfer where a fair and impartial trial cannot be had or where it is expedient for the ends of justice.  

Justice Batra noted that the apprehension here was not raised by a party alone but by the Presiding Officer before whom the case is pending, and was endorsed by the District and Sessions Judge. All the accused are members of the Bar practising in the same courts, two of them the then President and Secretary of the District Bar Association. The prosecuting agency itself had voiced an apprehension of pressure.

These circumstances, the court said, attract the second and fifth factors listed in Nahar Singh Yadav, namely the possibility that accused may influence witnesses or the complainant, and the existence of persons so hostile that they may interfere with the course of justice. It called this “an exceptional situation where transfer of the case is necessary to provide credibility to the trial.”

The court rejected the argument that the incident is old, saying the apprehension lies in the fact that the accused continue to practise before the very court that is to try them. It said inconvenience can be addressed by shifting the case to a nearby district and cannot outweigh the need for a trial that is “seen to be fair.”

On the amicable settlement plea, it noted that no settlement had been placed on record and that the complaint was filed by a public servant over an incident during his official duties. It added that the offence under Section 353 IPC is not compoundable.

The court clarified that the transfer is not on account of any doubt about the trial court, which itself made the reference.

ALSO: Punjab DA Contempt Case: Punjab Argues 6% Interest Means No Contempt; HC Rejects Basis

Panchkula School Negligence: How Systemic Lapses Failed a Special Needs Child

Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E