CRMMO/612/2019 on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 612 of 2019 Decided on: December 31, 2019 ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Hemlata Jindan

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ____________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of Session Trial No. 62 of 2018, titled State vs. Jai Prakash and others, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, to any other court in the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferably at Shimla.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on the statement of one Shri Jagdish Chand, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

recorded under S.154 CrPC, FIR No. 57, dated 7.9.2018 under Ss. 302, 506, 201, 120B and 34 IPC and S. 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 to 4, who have been found to be involved in the alleged crime in the investigation, are behind the bars. After completion of investigation, Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law. Material available on record reveals that learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan is in the process of recording statements of prosecution witnesses. Petitioner, who happened to be the wife of late Kidar Singh Jindan, who was allegedly murdered by respondents No.2 to 4, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for transfer of aforesaid session trial from the court of learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan to any other competent court in the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferably at Shimla, on the ground that since respondents Nos. 2 to 4 belong to District Sirmaur, she apprehends threat to her life in case session trial is permitted to continue in the court at Nahan. It has been further averred in the petition that the eye- witnesses, who are yet to be examined, are being threatened

by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. In paragraph 7 of the petition, petitioner has averred that whenever witnesses walk on the road in Shillai, strangers not only follow them but extend threats that in case they depose against respondents No.2 to 4, they would face dire consequences. Petitioner has further averred that whenever witnesses come to the Court for getting their statements recorded, supporters and relatives of respondents No.2 to 4 come in a mob with the intention to harm and terrorize the witnesses, so as to dissuade them from narrating true facts to the Court.

3. Careful perusal of the reply filed by respondent No.1 reveals that prosecution witnesses are being examined by learned Court below in the aforesaid case. Reply further reveals that the Police has not only provided protection to the family of the deceased at her native place rather, witnesses of the case have been also provided adequate Police protection. Moreover, it has been categorically stated in the reply that no complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of the petitioner, with regard to the alleged threats, if any, extended to her and her family members by respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

4. As per S.407 CrPC, High Court can proceed to transfer a case from one court to another, in case it appears to it that fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held in a criminal case, subordinate to it. In the case at hand, no material circumstance has been indicated in the petition at hand, suggestive of the fact that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held in the court of learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. Mere allegation that the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses are being coerced not to depose in the court, may not be sufficient especially when complainant as well as prosecution witnesses have been already provided adequate security by the Police. Interestingly, in the case at hand, as has been taken note herein above, no complaint ever came to be lodged against the persons, if any, terrorizing /dissuading the complainant or prosecution witnesses not to depose against respondents No. 2 to 4.

5. Having taken note of the fact that adequate protection stands already provided to the complainant as well as witnesses, there appears to be no justification for transferring the session trial from the court of learned Special

Judge, Nahan to some other court, especially when case is at the stage of recording statements of prosecution witnesses.

6. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, fairly stated that adequate protection has been already provided to the complainant as well as witnesses of the case and, if need be, more protection to the complainant as well as witnesses of the case shall be provided as and when asked for by the complainant and/or the witnesses.

7. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan is directed to ensure that whenever complainant or witnesses come to depose in the trial court, no unwanted persons are allowed to enter the court premises. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.

8. Having taken note of the fact that respondents No.2 to 4 are behind the bars since September, 2018, this Court hopes and trusts that learned Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today. Registry to apprise learned Court below with regard to passing of instant judgment, enabling it to proceed further with the trial.

9. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms alongwith pending applications, if any.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 31, 2019 (Vikrant)