ASHISH JAIN Vs. ASI SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No.688, dated 08.12.2011, registered at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak and is complainant in Criminal Complaint bearing No.30/2013 dated 17.04.2013/04.07.2013, pending in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak, has prayed for transferring both the cases to one single Court as, according to him, the occurrence which is the subject matter of both the cases is of the same date i.e. 07.12.2011. Of course, the version of contesting parties are in conflict with each other. It may be mentioned that respondent Nos.l and 2 in the present case are Police personnel, who are alleged to have falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR motivatedly at the instance of other private respondents. It may be further mentioned that on the disputed date, death of the petitioner s son, namely, Lakshay Jain had occurred on account of food poisoning. The petitioner insists in his complaint that his son was forcibly made to consume stale food by the respondents which ultimately caused his death by food poisoning. On the other hand, according to the FIR, on reaching the Police Station, the petitioner sent his wife and his children to his relatives home and asked them to consume something along with her children because "it is better to die" on account of which, the petitioner's wife administered some poisonous substance to herself and her children.

(2.) In the above circumstances, it is crystal clear that the real question to be determined is as to how and at whose instance, death of the petitioner's son was caused? The versions of the contesting sides are diametrically opposite to each other.

(3.) It has nevertheless been contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's complaint is a belated afterthought, after he had already been named in the FIR way-back on 08.12.2011. In countering this submission, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint could not be filed earlier prior to 17.04.2013 as the petitioner was himself arrested in the aforesaid FIR and remained in detention for more than a year. He was ultimately granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-34092-2012 on 13.12.2012 but was able to actually come out of the prison only on 09.01.2013, after which it took him a couple of months to collect the documents for preparing and filing his own complaint.