Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to transfer the case bearing Sessions case No. RT-34/10.9.1997/27.11.1999 arising out of FIR No. 54 dated 12.5.1997 under Sections 302/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kharar, which is pending trial in the Court of Sh. Mohinder Pal, Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar to any other Sessions Court in the State of Punjab or Union Territory. 2. Both the petitioners are under-trial prisoners. According to the petitioners, certain events have taken place which have caused suspicion in their minds that they are not going to get justice from the Court of Mohinder Pal, Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. It is stated in paragraph 2(a) that the complainant party is openly claiming in the village that they will get the petitioners sentenced to life imprisonment because the Judge belongs to their Biradari (brotherhood). They are also claiming that they have been able to influence the Judge. According to him, it is well known that the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the complainant party belong to the same caste and are also very closely associated with each other. It is also stated that the Additional Sessions Judge is out and out to decline each and every prayer of the petitioners which is made for effectively leading the defence evidence. So much so, even the prayer for effective cross-examination of PW.1 - Dr. Kartar Singh was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without any valid reason. It is also stated that earlier the Additional Sessions Judge, namely, Sh. P.S. Bajaj had allowed three days interim bail in connection with the sisters sons marriage. But the present Additional District Judge has declined a similar application. 3. In view of the allegations made in the petition, the comments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were called for. The comments have been received. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly stated that leaving aside the close association, he is not even aware of the caste of the complainant or that of the petitioners. With regard to examination of Dr. Kartar Singh, PW.1, it is stated that he was cross-examined by the accused on 17.8.1998 and at that time, the case was pending in the Court of Sh. P.S. Bajaj, the then Additional Sessions Judge. With regard to examination of Dr. Kartar Singh, PW.1, it is stated that he was cross-examined by the accused on 17.8.1998 and at that time, the case was pending in the Court of Sh. P.S. Bajaj, the then Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, the question of non- grant of opportunity by the present Additional Sessions Judge does not arise. With regard to the declining of the interim bail, it is stated that contrary to what is pleaded, the applicant was allowed to attend the marriage by order dated 25.5.2000. Copy of this order has been attached with the comments. A perusal of this order shows that the application for releasing the applicant on interim bail was vehemently opposed by the complainant. Even then the learned Judge after considering the circumstances of the case, granted interim bail. 4. In view of the comments sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, it becomes apparent that the petitioners are merely trying to delay the out-come of the trial. Merely because the Judge happens to be of the same caste as the complainant party would not render the Judge unqualified to decide the case. Prejudice cannot be presumed merely because the litigant and the Judge belong to the same caste. If such an argument is to be accepted, a large number of cases in this country could not be decided as the complainant or the accused may well belong to the caste of the Judge. Apart from this, it is to be noticed that the allegations made in the petition are of a very general nature. The association of the Judge with the complainant party has not been particularised. 5. In my view, in order to maintain the dignity of the office of the Judicial Officers, it is necessary to take a stem view of any false allegations which are made against the Judicial Officers. In the present case, clearly the allegations made against the Additional Sessions Judge are frivolous and motivated. I am of the opinion that filing of the present petition is an abuse of the process of Court. In such circumstances, the Court cannot remain a mute spectator, and be content with the mere dismissal of the petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with costs. Petitioners are directed to pay costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the same should be deposited with the Legal Aid Fund, Punjab. Petition dismissed.