threat perception in travelling to Rohtak fr o m the accused. It is submitte d that when t h e petitioners had gone to Dis t rict Court Rohtak for attendin g the Court case fixed for 26.09.2022 f o r putting appearance, then respondent N o.2 forcibly stopped them at t he main entrance of the Cour t premises an d abused and threatened the m with dire consequences whil e leaving, as s uch, it is difficult for petition e r No.1 being a single lady t o handle suc h an atmosphere of insecurity and to attend the Cour t proceedings at Rohtak. Moreover, petitioners No.2 and 3 are pursuing thei r studies. It is accordingly prayed that the present FIR be transferred fro m District Judg e , Rohtak to District Judge, Cha n digarh. 3. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of thi s Court to th e averments made in reply da t ed 27.04.2023 filed by way o f affidavit of Dr. Ravinder, HPS Deputy Su p erintendent of Police, Rohtak , wherefrom i t is informed that challan in th e present case was filed agains t respondent No.2 in the Court on 02.12. 2 019; and charges have bee n framed vid e order dated 28.01.2021. A s regards the alleged threa t perception o f the petitioners, it is submi t ted that no complaint in thi s regard has b een received on behalf of the petitioner no.1 till date. N o incident has ever been reported by the petitioner No.1 after lodging of th e present FIR. Moreover, as per the status re p ort, the local police is ready t o provide pro t ection to the petitioners as a nd when they will appear in Rohtak. In any event, the place of o c currence of alleged offence s mentioned i n the FIR, is Rohtak. Out of sev e n witnesses in the case, six ar e official witn e sses and one is the complai n ant/private witness/petitione r
