Court Hearings Frequently Disturbed By Unruly Crowds: Punjab & Haryana High Court Transfers Behbal Kalan Firing Case From Faridkot To Chandigarh

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the transfer of the trial in the 2015 Behbal Kalan firing case from Faridkot to Chandigarh. The case was registered in Punjab's Faridkot district in 2015, a week after two protesters were killed in alleged police firing at Behbal Kalan while protesting against the alleged sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa followers.

The plea for transferring the trial was filed by the then SSP Charanjit Singh, who was arrested in the case.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "It is becoming a frequent phenomenon in our country that court proceedings are being disturbed by rude hoodlums and unruly crowds, jostling, jeering or cheering and disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises and worse. This tendency of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of court is obstructive of the course of justice and must surely be stamped out."

The Court said that it must ensure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquillity at the trial.

"Turbulent conditions putting the accused's life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent, the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary," it added.

These observations came in response to the plea filed by the accused who was then SSP, Charanjit Singh Sharma under Section 407 CrPC for transfer of case FIR lodged under Sections 302, 307, 34, 201, 218, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that on each and every date of hearing since the presentation of challan in court in 2019, a surcharged atmosphere is created by supporters consisting of radical organizations reached the court complex at Faridkot in tractor-trolleys and other modes of transport raising slogans in support of the family of the deceased who are sponsored by vested interest trying to take political/religious mileage.

He submitted that the security personnel employed in the Court Complex are mute spectators to the scene created by radical elements and the newspapers as well as media have been reporting the proceedings of this case extensively after each date of hearing and as such it has become difficult for the petitioner to appear in court without fear.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that, "a free and fair trial is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution even as it forms the foundation of criminal jurisprudence. Fairness of a trial can only be ensured if the process from investigation to conviction is not tainted with bias for or against the accused or the victim."

"The nature of the criminal justice system in Bharat is such that the involvement of executive in the investigation and prosecution process paves the way for bias in the trial proceedings leaving a vacuum for tampering of evidence and witnesses being intimidated and put in danger are extremely high," added the Court.

Justice Moudgil said that a more serious ground which disturbs the Court in more ways than one is the alleged "absence of congenial atmosphere for a fair and impartial trial."

Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily, added the judge.

The Court also clarified that It is no doubt pertinent to mention that the transfer process itself can cause a lot of inconvenience to witnesses, victims, accused and the state.

"All of them would on transfer have to travel to the place where the transfer is ordered when required, costing time and money for all the interested parties. Since the interest of both the victim and the accused can be in jeopardy in an unfair trial a question arises as to who can claim transfer under this section," it said.

 Referring to Section 407 CrPC, the Court said, "It thus emerges out that whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held in any criminal court subordinate thereto, or that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or that an order under this section is required by any provision of CrPC, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction."

Plea For Transfer Cannot Be Filed Directly In High Court

The Court said that unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him, no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division.

Every application for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. When an application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub-section (7) CrPC, it said further.

The judge added that, where the application is for the transfer of a case of an appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, in such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose.

If Trial Permitted To Continue At Faridkot, Communally Surcharged Atmosphere May Be Created For Holding Fair Trial

In the present case, the Court noted that an accused was allegedly murdered in broad daylight despite being provided security by the State Government.

"Various news items have also been placed on record...which are shrouded with the incidents relating to sacrilege to show the law and order situation in the region," it noted.

Reliance was also placed on Apex Court's decision in Sukhjinder Singh @ Sunny & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.284 of 2020] wherein four FIRs relating to the trial of those persons who were allegedly connected to the incident of sacrilege, from Faridkot to the competent Court at UT Chandigarh solely keeping in view the apprehension of safety and security of the accused persons, as well as the defence witnesses.

"The power under Section 407 CrPC has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial, however, in keeping in mind the peculiar factual and law and order situation particularly the life and security of the accused and other witnesses in the present case," the Court opined that the case for transfer is made out.

"The documents placed on record and the instances quoted by the petitioner are sufficient enough to indicate that if trial is permitted to continue at Faridkot that may create communally surcharged atmosphere for holding fair and impartial trial," the judge opined.

Justice Moudgil said, that since the Apex Court itself has transferred the trial of all the FIRs, referred to above, relating to the said sacrilege incident from Moga and Faridkot to UT Chandigarh, this Court sees no reason for it to deviate from the order passed by the Apex Court.

In the light of the above, the Court directed to transfer the trial from the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate and Ms. Shubreet Kaur and Mr. MB Rajwade, Advocates for petitioner

Mr. Deepender Singh, Addl. AG Punjab

Title: Charanjit Singh Sharma v. State of Punjab

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 192

Click here to read/download the order