(1.) Through the medium of instant petition filed under Sec. 526 Cr.P.C., the petitioner inter alia seeks transfer of criminal challan in FIR No.16/2018 for the commission of offence under Ss. 306/34 RPC, titled State v/s Milap Chand and others, pending trial in the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu.
(2.) In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is the father of deceased Pankaj Singh, who committed suicide because of the harassment being meted out to him in the hands of accused/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. It has been further stated that son of the petitioner was married with accused No.2 in the year 2013 and accused Nos.3 and 4 are parents in law of the deceased; that relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 were hostile after 2015; that accused/wife Pushpa Devi, who was pursuing her M.Sc. in Zoology from Central University, Dehradun and after higher education deserted the son of the petitioner and left the matrimonial house without informing him; that deceased made numerous efforts to bring back the accused No.1 so as to live as husband and wife but the behavior of the deceased was so aggravated which made the deceased to commit suicide; that Police Station, Ramsoo pursuant to committing of suicide by the deceased on 23/3/2018 registered an FIR alleging therein that one Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.JK02B-8289, which was being driven by Pankaj Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o Dessa Doda from Kot Pogal towards Ukhral, in a rash and negligent manner, had met with an accident at Shalgarh, at about 11.15 am, thus FIR No.16/2018 for offence under Sec. 279/337 RPC was registered and the investigation was taken up by Incharge Police Post Ukhral, who visited the spot where he found that the driver of the vehicle, Pankaj Singh had already succumbed to injuries, so the offence under Sec. 304-A RPC was added. During course of investigation, it came in light that the said incident was not an accident, but was a suicide committed by the deceased thus a SIT was constituted to investigate the case, which recorded the statements of various witnesses and also collected all other material evidence in the case. In the course of investigation, it was established that the deceased Pankaj Singh, who was married to Pushpa Devi daughter of Milap Chand, in the month of October, 2013 had some matrimonial dispute with his wife and parents in law. The wife of the deceased and his parents in law, were always taunting and torturing the deceased for his law academic qualification; that a female child was born in the month of September, 2017 but even thereafter the things did not improve; that despite various attempts on part of the deceased to bring respondent No.2 and the minor daughter back to their home, the same did not happen, which had mentally frustrated the deceased to such a level which compelled him to commit suicide; that on 22/3/2018 the deceased informed his relatives and friends that he is going to his in-law’s house at Pogal to make a last attempt to bring his wife along with baby daughter back to matrimonial home and in case he failed this time in his attempt he will finish himself by rolling down his vehicle in a gorge; that on 22/3/2018 in the evening, the wife of the deceased and his parents in law again tortured the deceased and his wife was not permitted to accompany him by his parents in law, therefore, have instigated and abetted the deceased for committing suicide, thus the offence under Sec. 306 RPC was found proved.
(3.) It has been further stated that after presentation of the challan before the competent court of law, the public prosecutor who has to conduct the trial on behalf of the State before the trial court is the first cousin brother of the accused Dharmi Devi and brother in law of the accused/respondent No.3, therefore, the petitioner being the father of the deceased and being the star witness in the case will not get justice in the event of conducting the trial by the said public prosecutor before the court below. There is no body from the legal profession, who is ready to appear in the case on behalf of the petitioner/complainant to prosecute the case. The members of the bar association refused to represent the petitioner in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramban where the challan is pending. It has further been stated that the petitioner while opposing the bail application before the CJM, Ramban engaged one local counsel namely Suraj Singh Parihar, who after receiving the brief about the incident, refused to appear by attributing that the son-in-law of the accused No.1, namely Karnail Singh who is a practicing lawyer at District Court Ramban is close friend. Thereafter petitioner engaged another counsel, namely, Tassudaq Malik who received an amount of Rs.25,000.00 as a counsel fee from the petitioner but subsequently refused to appear in the case, resultantly he refunded the fee through Bank account No.582 maintained by the wife of the petitioner; that the accused, who, at present are residing at Jammu and for just and fair trial, it would be proper if the criminal trial of the case pending in the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban is transferred to any other court at Jammu.