Srinagar, Mar 31: A Sessions court here Wednesday listed on May 4, a Criminal Revision Petition regarding the murder of Kashmiri Pandit Satish Tickoo in February 1990 here.
The Criminal Revision Petition is challenging the order passed by a Magistrate court on September 1, 2021 whereby the application seeking direction to complete the investigation with regard to killing of Tickoo and filing of the charge-sheet was dismissed in default ( non appearance of the counsel).
In his revision petition Maharaj Krishan Tickoo submits that his brother Satish Tickoo was a social activist Kashmiri Pandit who was extending support to other Kashmiri Pandit Families who had lost their loved ones.
He submits that on 02.02.1990 Farooq Ahmad Dar (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.
The petitioner contends that on 19.07.2021, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 besides seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet at the earliest.
He submits that on 01.09.2021 the application was listed before the Judicial Magistrate Srinagar.
The petitioner contends that on 01.09.2021 at 9.16 am, before the hearing of the matter, his counsel contacted criminal Clerk attached to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 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 the Criminal Clerk to apprise the Court about the adjournment.
The petitioner submits that on 01.09.2021, when the matter was taken by up for hearing, the Judicial Magistrate, instead of adjourning the matter as requested by his Counsel dismissed the same for default that is non-appearance for counsel.
Against this dismissal, the petitioner has approached the sessions Court. In the Revision Petition, he is seeking to set aside order dated 01.9.2021 passed in Application u/s.156 No.197/2021 by the Judicial Magistrate and restoration of Application filed by the petitioner to its original position before the Magistrate.