JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in terms of the instant petition seeks withdrawal of the case from the court of learned 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srinagar to any court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. The grounds taken for the same are that during the trial prosecution is confronted with some very serious developments i.e., some elements along-with the accused persons and their relatives are creating difficulties at their place of lodgements as well as on their way to the court for hearing. This generates trouble and difficulties to the members/staff of concerned jail as well during the process of escorting them to the court for hearing. 2. It is further pleaded in the petition that the accused on their production raise anti national slogans enroute to court and also indulge in instigating the locals, resulting in law and order problems. Furthermore, the accused within the court premises are gathering hundreds of people who intimidate and threaten the witnesses, thus a fair and impartial trial is impossible in the case. It is the submission of the petitioner that the witnesses are feeling afraid to testify before the court on being frightened and threatened by various quarters at the behest of the accused persons and their sympathizers. It is further pleaded that the SHO, P/S Rainawari and Batamallo have submitted their reports to this extent. Also the SHO, P/S Nowhatta has informed that the witnesses/investigating officer and members of Special Investigation Team are being intimidated and threatened of dire consequences due to which there is every apprehension that the witnesses may be forced to turn hostile. It is also set-forth that the civilian witnesses are approaching the investigating agency with reports of harassment, hence the instant petition for transfer of the case outside the Valley. 3. It is also set-forth that the civilian witnesses are approaching the investigating agency with reports of harassment, hence the instant petition for transfer of the case outside the Valley. 3. In support of the petition, the reports entered in the daily diaries of Police Station, Nowhatta dated 01.03.2018, Police Station, Rainawari dated 05.02.2018, Police Station, Khanyar dated; nil and Police Station, Batamallo dated 31.01.2018, have been annexed wherein it is stated that when the accused persons are being brought from the jail to the court for hearing, on the roadways leading to the court, the provocation of their heirs results into pressure on the prosecution witnesses, and resultantly the trial is not being carried out in proper manner and makes the same impossible, therefore, prayed that the hearing of the accused may be performed at such a place where the prosecution witnesses may be without any pressure or harm record their statements. 4. Two sets of objections have been filed. One is filed through Advocate Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, who represents respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 and another is filed through Mr. N.A. Ronga, counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 12 to 17. 5. Precisely the grounds taken in the objections are:— 6. It is contended in the objections that the State is seeking transfer of the case with malafide intentions and the petition filed by the petitioner is full of lies, fabricated facts and concocted story regarding the allegations levelled against the respondents, as there are CCTV cameras installed all over the Valley including the Central Jail, Srinagar and other jails, so all the facts whatever have been submitted and stated in the instant transfer application should be gathered and retrieved from the CCTV footage. 7. Further contention raised is that the respondents were disintegrated to various jails like Udhampur, Kathua, Amphla in Jammu and some were lodged and transferred to Sub Jail, Pulwama and a few have been lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar, making the trial of the case virtually impossible, as neither all the accused are being produced in the court for facing trial nor during and in the course of examination of the witnesses. The presence of the accused at the time of examination of the witnesses is mandatory, as a result thereof the trial of the case is being delayed for want of production of the accused, as such, the respondents are denied and deprived from their right of fair and speedy trial. Furthermore, it is contended that it would be of great trouble and inconvenience for the respondents if the case is transferred to a far place like Jammu, almost 300 kms. away from Srinagar. The basic mandate of law for transfer of criminal cases, which is laid down in Chapter XLIV, Section 526(i)(d) of Cr. PC provides for:— “....That an order under this Section will tend to general convenience of the parties or witnesses.......” The respondents would be badly hit by any order if passed for transfer of the case from Srinagar to Jammu. 8. Heard Mr. Asif Bhat, learned AAG, who taking reliance on the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, contended that in similar circumstances the Hon’ble Apex Court has withdrawn the cases pending trial and transferred the same to other courts so that there is no miscarriage of justice. 9. In the judgment rendered in Vikas Kumar Roorkewal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., 2011(2) SCC 178 , as relied on by learned AAG, their lordships have held that circumstances present justify reasonable apprehension of the petitioner that there would be failure of justice and acquittal of accused only because witnesses are threatened. Further, held that it has become difficult for witnesses to safely depose because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they have to depose. Para-29 is relevant to be quoted hereunder:— “29. From the averments made in the petition it is evident that the accused belong to a powerful gang operating in U.P. from which the State of Uttarakhand is carved out. The petitioner has been able to show the circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that it has become difficult for the witnesses to safely depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they have to depose. The reluctance of the witnesses to go to the court at Haridwar in spite of receipt of repeated summons is bound to hamper the course of justice. The reluctance of the witnesses to go to the court at Haridwar in spite of receipt of repeated summons is bound to hamper the course of justice. If such a situation is permitted to continue, it will pave way for anarchy, oppression, etc., resulting in breakdown of criminal justice system. In order to see that the incapacitation of the eyewitnesses is removed and justice triumphs, it has become necessary to grant the relief claimed in the instant petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if transfer of the case from Haridwar to Delhi is ordered.” 10. Learned AAG has also taken reliance on the judgment reported in 2010(5) SCC 115 , Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Vs. Hopeson Ningshen & Ors., wherein their lordships have held ‘that in order to ensure that fair trial takes place, interests of all stakeholders, namely, the accused, witnesses, prosecutors, near relatives of victim, as well as society at large need to be accounted for, transferred the case to another place.’ 11. Another judgment rendered in Krishan Lal Jandial Vs. State of J&K & Ors 2010 JKJ(3) HC 68, as relied on by learned AAG, it has been held that the complainant or any interested person interested in fairness and transparency of criminal trial has right to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Section 526. Not only the Public Prosecutor but the person at whose instance the police machinery was set into motion, may ask for transfer of criminal case from the trial court to any other competent court. Para-8 of the said judgment would be advantageous to quote here:— “8. The threshold arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the complainant or for that matter any person interested in fairness and transparency of the criminal trial has right to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code and seek transfer of criminal trial from the trial court to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Section 526 begins with the expression “whenever it is made to appear to the High Court, making intention of the law makers clear that information conceived by Section 526(1) Clauses (a) to (e) may come to the High Court from any source the trial court or the persons interested in impartiality and transparency of the trial. Sub section(3), Section 526Cr.P.C makes, scope of Section 526 Cr.PC further free from any ambiguity by laying down that the High Court may act either on the report of the lower court or on the application of party interested, or on its own initiative. Section 526 is not controlled by Section 266 of the Code. So viewed, not only the Public Prosecutor but the person at whose instance the police machinery was set into motion, may ask for transfer of criminal case from the trial court to any other competent court. In Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 1943 a criminal transfer application filed by son of the deceased seeking transfer of a criminal trial under section 302 I.P.C relating to alleged murder of his father was not only entertained by Supreme Court but allowed and the case pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain M.P. transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge Nagpur, Maharastra.” 12. Mr. Ronga, learned counsel appearing for above referred respondents, contended that the minutes of proceedings of the trial court, copies of which have been brought on record, sufficiently indicate the lack of interest on the part of the State to prosecute the case. The investigating officer was not present on the different dates fixed in the case though directed by the court. Witnesses too were not examined due to the unwarranted conduct of the prosecuting agency. The daily diary report register of petitioner is also, according to him, manipulated and cannot be relied on. 13. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, learned counsel for some of the respondents, stated that the SSP concerned, who has filed the instant petition, has no power to do so as he is neither the complainant nor investigation officer of the case. The case was registered in the Police Station, Batamallo, so the concern if any with regard to the fair trial, had to be shown by the said SHO. Reliance has been taken on the number of judgments by Mr. The case was registered in the Police Station, Batamallo, so the concern if any with regard to the fair trial, had to be shown by the said SHO. Reliance has been taken on the number of judgments by Mr. Dar, including; 2011(1) SCC Cri 638; 1979 SCC(Cri) 934; 1980 SCC(Cri) 777, 2011(1) SCC Cri 39, 2012(4)SCC (Cri) 240. 14. In one of the reported judgments, on which reliance has been taken, is rendered in Maneeka Sanjay Gandhi V. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 SCC(Cri) 934. It would be advantageous to quote Para 2 and 3 of the said judgment:- “2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances. 3. One of the common circumstances alleged in applications for transfer is the avoidance of substantial prejudice to a party or witnesses on account of logistics or like factors, especially when an alternative venue will not seriously handicap the complainant and will mitigate the serious difficulties of the accused. In the present case the petitioner claims that both the parties reside in Delhi and some formal witnesses belong to Delhi; but the meat of the matter, in a case of defamation is something different. The main witnesses are those who speak to having read the offending matter and other relevant circumstances flowing therefrom. They belong to Bombay in this case and the suggestion of the petitioner’s counsel that Delhi readers may be substitute witnesses and the complainant may content herself with examining such persons is too presumptuous for serious consideration.” 15. Mr. The main witnesses are those who speak to having read the offending matter and other relevant circumstances flowing therefrom. They belong to Bombay in this case and the suggestion of the petitioner’s counsel that Delhi readers may be substitute witnesses and the complainant may content herself with examining such persons is too presumptuous for serious consideration.” 15. Mr. Dar, learned counsel for respondents, has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case Cr.T.A. No. 35/2013 titled Mst. Hafeeza Vs. State of J&K & Ors. decided on 14.10.2014, wherein his lordship has dismissed the transfer application by holding that:— “...I do not find a valid reason for taking a view other than that taken by the learned Single Judge in the earlier transfer application. I am not impressed by the contention that turning hostile of a prosecution witness, who happens to be police personnel, should indicate any level of threat perception and is a sufficient cause for taking a view that fair trial is not possible at Srinagar. I rather reel persuaded to agree with the submission of learned State counsel that a number of criminal cases, most of them of serious nature, are pending trial in different courts in Kashmir and the situation does not warrant transfer of a case outside Kashmir Province for ensuring fair trial. Viewed thus, this transfer application is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected Cr.MA.” 16. Considered the rival arguments. 17. On a plain reading of Section 526 of Cr.PC, it can be safely stated that the jurisdiction under the said Section can be invoked by any person interested in the fair trial of a case pending before a criminal court. No rider is placed in terms of the said provisions that the jurisdiction can be invoked only on an application filed by the Station House Officer or Investigating officer or by the first informant at whose instance the machinery of law has come into motion. The Senior Superintendent of Police, in the instant case is expected to be so interested would be, thus, competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for transfer of the case under Section 526 Cr.PC. The plea raised regarding non-maintainability of the petition is accordingly turned down. 18. The Senior Superintendent of Police, in the instant case is expected to be so interested would be, thus, competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for transfer of the case under Section 526 Cr.PC. The plea raised regarding non-maintainability of the petition is accordingly turned down. 18. Nonetheless the said fact this Court is under an obligation to consider other aspects of the case including the developments which have been reflected in the interim orders of the trial court to examine the merit of the petition. The reports recited in the daily diaries, of which reference is found hereinabove, no-doubt indicate that the attempts have been made to overawe the machinery of the law but to lend credence to same the concerned officer of the police stations or the persons, at whose instance such reports were entered or who saw the witnesses being threatened or course of justice being thwarted, have not come forward and sworn any affidavit. Similarly, no material which can be prima facie treated enough for drawing any inference that the accused have indulged in the activities referred in the petition in the Central Jail, Srinagar or enroute to court when produced for hearing. The minutes of the proceedings, as reflected in the interim orders, copies of which have been brought on record by Mr. Ronga, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 12 to 17, rather indicate that the investigating agency has not taken steps, which were expected of it for examination of the witnesses and for taking the trial ahead. 19. I, as such, do not find the material placed on record sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and to transfer the case to any other court outside the Valley at this time. For this, I am of the opinion that the application merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. Nothing stated herein shall preclude the petitioner or any other person, interested in having the fair trial, to move an application afresh in case there is any material available for re-visitation of the view taken herein and transfer of case to any other court.