A female Judicial Magistrate in Ghaziabad recently penned a letter to the District Judge, expressing concerns about being subjected to pressure tactics aimed at influencing her decision regarding a plea favoring one party.

The judge emphasized that the tactics employed by one party in a dispute, as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate's failure to act on her request to transfer the case to a different court, significantly exacerbated her concerns.

As per the contents of the letter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) issued a directive to transfer a case under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the magistrate's court for adjudication in accordance with the law.

Nevertheless, the magistrate asserted that upon receiving the case records, a group of unauthorized advocates entered her restroom at the court premises and informed her that the CJM had specifically transferred the case to her court with the intention of having the application under Section 156(3) rejected. They asserted that she was obligated to reject it.

According to the contents of the letter, the magistrate raised the issue with the CJM and requested the transfer of the case to another court. However, the CJM did not take any action on her request. Subsequently, Advocate Rohit Gola, representing the opposing party in the dispute, purportedly informed the magistrate in the courtroom that the CJM had indicated that the case transfer would only be considered if she personally appeared before him and made the request. Additionally, she was informed that the CJM had instructed her to contact him directly.

Subsequently, when she contacted the CJM by phone, he reprimanded her regarding the issue and directed her to meet him personally in his chamber. Allegedly, the next day, the CJM began calling her on her personal number. When she raised this matter with the Upper District and Sessions Judge, he advised her that if she felt uncomfortable, she should consider bringing someone along when visiting the CJM's chamber.

Following this, she visited the CJM's chamber accompanied by her husband. However, the CJM expressed discontent, questioning why she had brought her husband along. Allegedly, he emphasized that only her personal meeting with him would have been considered for the case transfer, as he had intentionally transferred the matter to her court.

According to the letter, two days later, the CJM issued an order rejecting her plea for the case transfer and instructed her to adjudicate the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code as per the law.

Under these circumstances, the magistrate wrote a letter to the District Judge, urging the transfer of the case to another competent court. She asserted her reluctance to preside over the matter, citing the aforementioned incidents as grounds for her request.