Srinagar: A Sessions Court here on Monday adjourned till June 7 a Criminal Revision Petition with regard to the murder of Kashmiri Pandit Satish Tickoo in February 1990.
The adjournment followed an email by advocate Utsav Bains, counsel for the family, seeking deferment of the hearing.
While granting the adjournment, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge posted the revision petition on June 7.
“Nobody has caused an appearance on the behalf of the petitioner. A mail has been received from counsel for petitioner for adjournment,” the court said in the order and posted the plea for further consideration on June 7.
The petitioner had challenged the order passed by a Magistrate court on September 1 last year whereby the application seeking direction to complete the investigation with regard to killing of Tickoo in February 1990 and filing of the charge-sheet was dismissed in default (non appearance of the counsel).
In his revision petition Maharaj Krishan Tickoo submitted that his brother Satish Tickoo was a social activist Kashmiri Pandit who was extending support to other Kashmiri Pandit families which had lost their loved ones.
He submitted, “On February 2, 1990 Farooq Ahmad Dar alias Bitta Karate along with co-accused fired gun-shots at Tickoo at his residence in Habba kadal due to which he sustained fatal injuries and was shifted to SMHS Srinagar where he was declared as dead.”
He submitted that on July 19, 2021, he moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate for monitoring of the investigation and calling of progress report in connection with the incident of his brother’s killing at Habbakadal.
“On September 1, 2021 the application”, he contended, “was listed before the Special Mobile Magistrate/ Railway Magistrate Srinagar and at 9.16 am, before the hearing of the matter, his counsel contacted clerk and informed him that as adequate security arrangements vide Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification upon order of the Supreme Court had not been made by CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force), he would not be able to appear in the matter and had sought an adjournment.”
The counsel, the petitioner said, “requested Criminal Clerk to apprise the Court about the adjournment.”
He submitted, “The Judicial Magistrate/Special Mobile Magistrate/Railway
Magistrate Srinagar instead of adjourning the matter as requested by his Counsel dismissed the same for default.”