241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.07.2025 DALJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

2. CRM-M-45787-2024 DALJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the aforementioned cases together they arise out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRM-M-45786-2024 titled as Daljit Singh v/s State of Punjab and others.

2. This is the second petition filed under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, BNSS) seeking transfer of the trial stemming from FIR bearing No.89 dated 04.09.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 471, 468 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Khilchiyan, District Amritsar (Annexure P-4) pending before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala to District Tarn Taran or any other place outside District Amritsar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had lodged the FIR (supra) against the respondents for preparing a forged Will in the name of petitioner’s late uncle, namely, Manjit Singh, in order to usurp the property of the deceased. He further contends that respondents No.2 to 4 are Advocates, practicing in the same district where FIR (supra) is pending. For this reason, no Advocate from the said district is willing to represent the petitioner, which has caused great prejudice and inconvenience to him. As such, it is prayed that the trial in FIR(supra) may be transferred to a nearby district.

4. Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 and filed his vakalatnama in CRM-M No.45786 of 2024 and memo of appearance in CRM-M No.45787 of 2024, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that attending the trial on each and every date, in some other district would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the private respondents.

6. Learned State counsel submits that ASI Rajwinder Singh had inquired into the assertion that no Advocate was willing to represent the petitioner against the private respondents and found the same to be correct. However, the Advocates of Ajnala Bar Association had refused to record any statements in this regard.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for disposal. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is facing genuine difficulty in securing legal representation in district Amritsar, owing to the fact that respondents No.2 to 4-accused are practicing as Advocates in the same district where the trial is currently pending. As such, local lawyers are either reluctant or unwilling to accept a brief against fellow members of the Bar. The current circumstances have seriously impeded the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and his effective participation in the proceedings, creating a reasonable apprehension of denial of effective access to justice.

8. The inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by undue influence or creation of a hostile environment by the opposite party, especially where the accused is an Advocate practicing in the same Court, compromises the foundational principles of fair trial. It is trite law that the inability to engage a legal counsel owing to reluctance caused by local factors may constitute a valid ground for transfer of trial under Section 407 Cr.P.C. (now Section 447 BNSS). In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, a two Ju