SUNIL SAINI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 30-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
1105
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1105
SUNIL SAINI & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.125 of 2019)
JANUARY 30, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA]
Transfer Petition: Transfer of the case sought from the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar to the Competent
Court in New Delhi – Jat Community agitation in the State of
Haryana seeking reservation led to the act of vandalization and
arson which allegedly caused huge irreparable damage to the
petitioners by setting their houses, godowns and their every
belonging on fire – Complete breakdown of the law and order
resulting in gross damage – Prosecuting team not acting in a
fair and fearless manner – Petitioners who are witnesses have
been under threats by the other-side – Held: Due to the passage
of time and the fact that nearly 42 witnesses have already been
examined, the case is not to be transferred – Special Public
Prosecutor has been appointed only recently and not being
unmindful also of his credentials which have been brought to
the notice, at this stage another person cannot be appointed in
his place – In view thereof, the petition disposed of, holding that
it would be open to the petitioners to approach the Director of
Prosecution in case they believe that even the Special Public
Prosecutor appointed is not discharging his duties in a fair and
impartial manner – Director (Prosecution) to look into the matter
and take appropriate steps – As far as protection to the witness
is concerned, it would be open to the petitioners to move the
presiding Judge or Special Public Prosecutor or the
Superintendent of Police of the concerned District seeking
protection.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
(Criminal) No.125 of 2019.
Transfer Petition under Article 139A(2) of the Constitution read
with Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying
for the transfer of the Case bearing S.C. No.285 of 2016 arising out
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
of FIR No.116 dated 22.02.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 186, 302,
307, 435, 436, 449, 395, 323, 326 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959, registered at the Police Station-Jhajjar in the matter titled
“STATE OF HARYANA versus SANDEEP @ KALA AND ANR”,
pending before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhajjar to the
Competent Court in New Delhi]
Abhimanyu Tewari, Neiketou Rio, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advs. for
the Petitioners.
Nikhil Goel, AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle, Aditya Singh, Shubham
Singh, Rajiv Dalal, Pankaj Yadav, Aniruddha Deshmukh, Adithya K.
Roy, Naveen Goel, Ms. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Judgment was delivered by the Court:
JUDGMENT
(1) The relief sought for in the transfer petition is as follows:
“(a) Transfer the case bearing S.C. No.285 of 2016
arising out of FIR No.116 dated 22.02.2016 u/S 148, 149, 186,
302, 307, 435, 436, 449, 395, 323, 326 IPC and Section 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station-Jhajjar, titled “State of
Haryana versus Sandeep @ Kala & Anr.”, pending before the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar to the Competent
Court in New Delhi.”
(2) The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that an agitation
was carried out by members of the Jat community in the State of
Haryana in 2016. They sought reservation in Government jobs and
educational institutions.During thisagitation, the members of Jat
community vandalized and committed acts of arson which allegedly
caused huge irreparable damage to the petitioners by setting their
houses, godowns and their every belonging on fire.
(3) An allegation is made against an advocate who is alleged
to be very influential and who had remained President of the Bar. It
is alleged that because of this connivance, 2-3 material witnesses
have been forced to turn hostile as well as material documentary
evidence has not been placed on record.
(4) It is their further case that an application was filed under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the
advocate and his son but their application was not countersigned by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners, therefore, knocked at the door
of this Court by filing this petition to get their case transferred to
another state so that interest of justice is sub-served.
(5) Counter Affidavit as well as an application to file additional
documents have been filed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. In the
application for additional documents, it is sought to be establ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.