J&K High Court rejects plea to shift cheque bounce trial from Srinagar

SRINAGAR: The high court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday rejected a Congress worker’s plea to shift his trial in a cheque bounce case to Jammu, saying he had no reason to feel threatened as terrorism had almost been eliminated in the Valley.

“Militancy is almost negligible at present in Kashmir Valley and the situation since 1990 has transformed drastically,” a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said, adding that the petitioner’s contention that he was still facing threat to his life in Kashmir was “improbable”.

Thousands of political workers of various parties, who had fled the Valley in the 1990s because of terrorism, had returned in recent years and participated in the electoral process several times, the court pointed out.

The petitioner, Sonaullah Dar, had sought the transfer of a complaint filed against him by Mukhtar Ahmad Gashroo under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from a judicial magistrate’s court in Srinagar to a court of competent jurisdiction in Jammu.

Dar had pleaded guilty in the case, following which the trial court directed him to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.

In his petition, Dar stated that he migrated to Jammu along with his family after he was attacked by terrorists in early 1990s. Apart from citing terror threat, Dar said he was not in a position to travel to Srinagar due to his medical condition. He submitted documentary proof to back his claim that he is a registered migrant in Jammu.

HC, however, rejected his claim, noting that in his statement recorded under section 251 of CrPC, the petitioner had mentioned he was a resident of Ratsun Beerwa in Budgam district, while the address mentioned in his petition was Christian Colony, Jammu. There was “overwhelming material on record of the trial court” to show that Dar had relocated to his original residence, HC said.

“It appears the petitioner has filed the present transfer petition so as to avoid payment of the cheque amount to the respondent and to prolong the proceedings pending before the trial court,” Justice Dhar said, holding Dar’s petition to be “devoid of merit.”