IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-26343 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 14, 2011 Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. M.S. Cheema, Advocate with Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Katyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Hry. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent No.3. T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral) The petitioner, whose daughter Reena was said to have met dowry death, in respect of which, criminal case under Section 304-B IPC was registered against respondent No.3, has filed the present petition with a prayer for transfer of the trial against respondent No.3 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind to any other Court of competent jurisdiction but outside the Sessions Division, Jind. In support of his petition, the petitioner had pleaded Criminal Misc. No.M-26343 of 2011 (O&M) -2- that after the cross-examination of PW10 Dr. S.K. Dhattarwal was over the trial Court put four Court questions to the said doctor and the tenor of those questions, especially question No.4 would indicate that the prosecution case was false in the sense that the accidental anoxia or asphyxia which could be possible in the case, could very well have occurred due to constriction of neck if the patient was wearing tight clothes and was left unattended on a stretcher or a wheel chair in an unconscious condition. The other plea of the petitioner was that Ram Pal, who is father of respondent No.3, is a senior practising lawyer in the District Courts at Jind and at the relevant time was the President of the District Bar Association. Because of the influence wielded by Mr. Ram Pal, Advocate, none of the advocates practising at Jind came forward to accept the brief of the petitioner. A perusal of the statement of PW10 Dr. S.K. Dhattarwal, which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 would reveal that after the defence had cross- examined the said doctor, the trial Court posed three Court questions only. Question No.4, which has been mentioned in the statement of PW10 Dr. S.K. Dhattarwal had not been posed by the trial Court. In fact, it has been wrongly numbered as “4”. The same had been put by the defence after the trial Court had put three Court questions and got replies thereto. Therefore, it cannot Criminal Misc. No.M-26343 of 2011 (O&M) -3- be said that the trial Court was ought to damage the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has informed the Court that though Mr. Ram Pal is a practising Advocate at Jind but at the relevant time he was not the President of the District Bar Association. Moreover, the prosecution has since completed the recording of its entire evidence and the case is now fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Also, the complainant is represented by Shri Balwan Singh Bagri, Advocate of Jind, who is said to have standing of about ten years. Additionally, the petitioner has engaged the services of Mr. Pardeep Kumar Mittal, Advocate, who belongs to Muzaffar Nagar and is attending to the trial of the case against respondent No.3. In view of the above, no case is made out for transfer of the case outside the Sessions Division, Jind. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 14, 2011 JUDGE satish