Srinagar, July 7, KDC: Observing that militancy in Kashmir is now “almost negligible” and that the security situation has “transformed drastically” since the early 1990s, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by Sonaullah Dar, who claimed he had migrated to Jammu after being targeted by militants because of his association with the Congress, seeking transfer of a cheque bounce case from Srinagar to Jammu.
The Court held that his claim of facing a continuing threat to his life in the Valley was improbable in view of the prevailing circumstances and the material on record.
The petition sought transfer of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srinagar, to a competent court in Jammu. Dar submitted that he had shifted to Jammu with his family after being targeted by militants in the early 1990s and was unable to travel to Srinagar because of his medical condition. He also alleged that he had been harassed by the trial court and its clerk.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that while the petitioner had produced a ration card issued by the Relief Commissioner for Migrants to show that he had migrated to Jammu, the prevailing security situation in Kashmir had undergone a substantial change. The Court noted that political workers had returned to the Valley and participated in the electoral process over the years and held that the petitioner’s assertion of continuing to face a threat to his life in Kashmir was improbable.
The Court also found that the record before the trial court contradicted the petitioner’s claim that he was residing in Jammu. It noted that summons had been served at his address in Ratsun Beerwah and that his statement before the trial court, the personal bond executed by him and his Aadhaar card all reflected the same address. On that basis, the Court concluded that he had relocated to his original residence in Kashmir after his migration and held that his claim of presently residing in Jammu was not acceptable.
Rejecting the allegation of harassment by the trial court and its staff, Justice Dhar observed that the petitioner had not furnished any particulars in support of the claim. The Court further noted that the trial court record showed the petitioner had pleaded guilty in the cheque bounce proceedings and had been directed to liquidate the cheque amount payable to the complainant. It observed that the transfer petition appeared to have been filed to avoid payment of the cheque amount and to prolong the proceedings pending before the trial court.
Holding that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner warranted transfer of the case, the High Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim order that had stayed further proceedings before the trial court. (KDC)
