Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 701 (JK)

Mushtaq Ahmad Ganaie v. Shafeeq Ahmad Sofi

2022-12-14

SANJAY DHAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has sought transfer of criminal complaint filed by the respondent against him, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 NI Act, which is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff) Pulwama. The ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the complaint from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff) Pulwama to any other Court in District Srinagar is that the petitioner is facing security threat at Pulwama. It has been submitted that CID wing of the J&K Police has furnished reports as regards the threat perception of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. As per provisions contained in Section 407 of Cr.P.C, which vests power with the High Court to transfer the cases and appeals, one of the grounds of transfer of cases is general convenience of the parties or witnesses as also if it is expedient for the ends of justice. 4. In the present case the petitioner submits that there is security threat to him at Pulwama because of his past role in anti-militancy activities. It has been submitted that Pulwama is a militancy infested area, as such, it may not be feasible for the petitioner to attend the Court over there. In this regard the petitioner has placed on record communication dated July, 2013 issued by CID Special Branch Kashmir, which indicates that the petitioner has worked on anti-militancy front, due to which threat to his life from the militant organizations cannot be ruled out. There is another communication dated 04.03.2014 on record, according to which instructions have been issued to the District Police concerned to provide security cover to the petitioner in view of the threat perception. 5. From the documents placed on record by the petitioner it does appear that in the past the petitioner was facing security threat because of his anti-militancy activities, however, there is no latest communication of the security agencies on record that would suggest that the petitioner is facing any life threat at present. 6. 5. From the documents placed on record by the petitioner it does appear that in the past the petitioner was facing security threat because of his anti-militancy activities, however, there is no latest communication of the security agencies on record that would suggest that the petitioner is facing any life threat at present. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner was given an option that in case he undertakes to bear the travel expenses of the complainant, who is a resident of District Pulwama, for his visits to the Court at Srinagar in the event of transfer of the complaint to Srinagar, his prayer can be accepted, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not accepted the said offer. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer for transfer of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner cannot be acceded to. However, the safety and security of the petitioner, while he appears before the Court at Pulwama, is also to be ensured by this Court. 8. Accordingly, while declining the prayer for transfer of the complaint from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff) Pulwama to any other Court as Srinagar, a direction is issued to the SHO Police Station Pulwama to provide adequate security to the petitioner when he is called by the trial Court at Pulwama to appear in person. It is further directed that the trial Court shall not insist upon personal appearance of petitioner unless it is necessary for progress of the case. 9. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to trial Court and the SHO, Police Station Pulwama for taking necessary action.