- (1.) The petitioner is seeking transfer of the trial pending at Sonepat. The FIR was lodged on the complaint made by his wife under Section 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 506, 34 IPC. Petitioner no.1 is a lawyer. Petitioner no.2 is his sister. The wife had got the FIR registered in 2012. The police filed the challan in January, 2013. The transfer has been sought on the ground that he was threatened by the lawyers representing the complainant when he went to attend the Court proceedings. The petitioner had pleaded that he was scared of attending the Courts at Sonepat and there was a threat to his life. It was also pleaded that the respondents were also creating pressure upon the Court and there was a possibility that the trial would not be fair or independent.
(2.) The petitioner is seeking transfer to any other place in Haryana, preferably to Faridabad or Gurgaon as it was not possible for him to attend the cases at Sonepat. He had aged parents. His father was bed ridden and no good lawyer would appear to represent him before the Courts at Sonepat on account of the influence exercised by the complainant and her family members. The petitioner had further had pleaded that the uncle of the respondent was influential and a Director of a company and the complainant had his support. The petitioner had also pleaded that he had filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court and ex parte interim order was passed in his favour but later it was dismissed on 13.12.2013 but liberty was granted to approach the High Court. The petitioner had referred to number of authorities in his petition which need not detain us here. Notice was given to the respondents. The State had filed the reply and had denied that any incident had taken place on 27.02.2013. It was pleaded that the complainant was represented by the Public Prosecutor in the State case and the petitioner had been filing various petitions before the High Court and the Supreme Court and when no order was passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the petitioner had concocted a false story levelling allegations of threats by the lawyers representing the complainant. It was pleaded that the petitioner cannot get the case transferred as per his choice. It was pleaded that if the petitioner was unable to get lawyer from Sonepat, he could engage a lawyer from another place. Respondent no.2 in her reply had pleaded that the petition was vexatious, fabricated and contained frivolous allegations with a view to cause harassment. It was pleaded that the petition was liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It was pleaded that the petitioner had levelled false allegations that he was threatened by the complainant's counsel and false plea had been taken that they were creating any pressure on the Court. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder.
(3.) On 19.09.2015, the petitioners were directed to approach the competent authority in case they felt any threat to their life. The State of Haryana was directed to take necessary steps. The coordinate Bench had also directed the Court to adjourn the hearing beyond the date fixed by this Court. Therefore, since the time of filing of this petition, there is no progress in the trial. The submission by petitioner no.1 was that his sister was arrested and bail was allowed on 02.03.2013 and though the bonds were furnished on 04.03.2013, she could only be released on 07.03.2013. He had further contended that his father was suffering from paralysis and when he had gone to attend the Court hearing, he was heckled and he had made a statement (Annexure P-7) in the Court. The petitioner had submitted that he had approached the Supreme Court for transfer of the case to some other State but the petition was dismissed, however, observations made therein were important. The petitioner had referred to Annexure P-10 to P-12 and also the order placed at page no. 139. The petitioner had submitted that the Apex Court had observed that they could have passed an order for transfer of the case to another Court in Haryana but since the complainant had not been impleaded, therefore, even that order could not be passed. The petitioner had stated that he had made the complainant as a party but there was an objection and therefore, had to make necessary amendments. The counsel had further contended that he had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court but it was dismissed. The petitioner had extensively referred to the judgments and had placed reliance upon Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 3 AICLR 559 , Annavarapu Dhanaraj, Appa Rao Vs. Annavarapu Manikyam, Annavarapu Dhanaraju, 2011 LawSuit(AP) 464 , Sandip Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. CRR No.675 of 2008, D.O.D. 06.03.2009, Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and another V. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 AIR(SC) 468 , Transfer Petition (CRL) Nos.77 of 2003 -78 of 2003 (SC), Vikas Kumar Roorkewal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others Transfer Petition (CRL) No.29 of 2008, D.O.D.-11.11.2011 and Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and another = (D.O.D. 30.08.1999.;