B.L. Bhat 1. Petitioner-M.S. Kohli, who figures as accused in a criminal complaint titled as Ashok Mehta v. Capt. M.S. Kohli for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending decision before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua has sought indulgence of this Court for the transfer of the said case to some other Court in Jammu, having jurisdiction to try the case. It is inter-alia maintained in the petition that the petitioner besides being an old man of 72 years of age is a chronic patient of heart ailment has been advised by the Doctors specialists in the filed of cardiology not to travel by road or by train on long stretches, as a result of which his going to Kathua shall be detrimental to his life. That no cause of action as alleged in the complaint in question, has accrued to the respondent/complainant in or around Kathua, therefore, the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint. That the petitioner can defend himself in the case in question in a proper manner and most suitably in case same is transferred to some Court at Jammu as compared to Kathua. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has resisted the application by submitting that advancement of the age of the petitioner or his heart ailment cannot be made a ground for the transfer of the case from one Court to another. He further submits that if the petitioner is suffering with heart ailment in that case, he can approach the trial Court for his exemption from his personal appearance in the case in question, to which he assures that the Respondent will not object and the petitioner can seek the exemption from his personal appearance in the case before the Court. 3. Considered the rival contentions of the parties. This is celebrated law that grounds of transfer of a criminal case are to be tested on the touch-stone bearing in mind that the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction the try a case and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. 3. Considered the rival contentions of the parties. This is celebrated law that grounds of transfer of a criminal case are to be tested on the touch-stone bearing in mind that the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction the try a case and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. At the same time, the Court has also to been in mind that the process of Court should not be harass either of the party, because assurance of fair trial is the first imperative of the criminal law justice. Judging the case from this angle, the assurance and the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the respondent will not oppose the exemption of the Respondent/accused before the trial Court in case he approached the Court with an application for exemption for his personal appearance in the case in question dispels the ground put forth by the petitioner that due to ailing health, he cannot undertake long or short distance either by read or train. It takes me to the another ground put forth by the petitioner that no cause of action as alleged in the complaint has accused at Kathua or around Kathua. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier through the motion of revision, seeking quashment of the complaint and this motion came to be dismissed by this Court by virtue of Judgments dated 7.11.2002, after holding, "The allegations prima facie do not appears to be absurd, vague and hazard to justify interference and to consider that the process issued by the trial Court constitutes abuse of process of court. The interference by quashing the proceedings is not justified." 4. Now coming to last ground that the petitioner can defend himself in case more effectively and in a proper manner in Jammu as compared to Kathua, where the case is pending. In this behalf, it is pointed out that Kathua is a District Head quarter, where besides the trial Court, there is a Court of District & Sessions Judge and Court of District Judicial Mobile Magistrate and more than three dozen of lawyers are practising in these Courts, out of them few are quire reputed lawyers so far as their legal acumen is concerned. This being so, a better legal assistance is available at Kathua and the petitioner can seek services of any of the senior Advocates practising there to defend himself in the case in question, This is not the case of the petitioner that any of Advocates practising at Kathua has refused to defend him in the case, when approached by him in this behalf. 5. Viewed thus, no case of transfer of the case in question is made, therefore, the petition is rejected, however, with the direction to the trial Court to consider the claim of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance in the case as and when approached by him in this behalf and dispose of the case in the light of the indicated assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondent-Mr. J.P. Singh. Registry to return the record of the case together with copy of this order to the trial Court, where the parties cause their appearance on 27th of May, 2003.