Trp(Crl) No.01/2026 Item No.26 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:06.07.2026 Uploaded on: 07.07.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Trp(Crl.) No.01/2016 SONAULLAH DAR ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Ahmad Javaid, Advocate. Vs. MUKHTAR AHMAD GASHROO …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioner has, through the medium of present petition, sought transfer of complaint filed by the respondent against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (City Munsiff) Srinagar (hereinafter “the trial court”), to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu. 2) The ground urged by the petitioner for transfer of the complaint from Srinagar to Jammu is that he had migrated to Jammu along with his family after he was attacked by militants in early 1990s. It has been submitted that the Trp(Crl) No.01/2026 petitioner was a political worker associated with the Congress Party, as a result of which he became a target of the militants which forced him to migrate to Jammu. It has been submitted that the petitioner is presently residing at Jammu and he is not in a position to travel long distance to Srinagar because of his medical condition. It has also been submitted that petitioner is being harassed by the trial court as well as by its clerk and that he was thrashed by the respondent/complainant. 3) Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case including record of the trial court. 5) In order to support the contention that the petitioner has migrated to Jammu, he has placed on record a copy of the ration card issued by the Relief Commissioner (Migrants), Jammu, which shows that the petitioner is a registered migrant. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a political worker, as a result of which he became a target of the militants which forced him to migrate to Jammu, and, therefore, it would be inconvenient for him to appear before the trial court at Srinagar. 6) In the above context, it is to be noted that militancy is almost negligible at present in Kashmir Valley and the Trp(Crl) No.01/2026 situation since 1990 has transformed drastically. All political workers of Kashmir have relocated themselves to Kashmir province and they have participated in the electoral process several times since the eruption of militancy in 1990. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is still facing threat to his life in Kashmir is improbable. 7) Apart from the above, a perusal of the trial court record would reveal that the petitioner is presently living in Kashmir Valley. The record reveals that the petitioner was served with summons of the complaint filed by the respondent at his address at Village Ratsun Beerwa. In his statement recorded under Section 251 J&K Cr. P. C, the petitioner has mentioned his address as resident of Ratsun Beerwa and not Christian Colony, Jammu, which has been reflected as address in the present petition. In the personal bond filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court, his address is shown as Ratsun Beerwa and even in his Aadhaar card, his residential address is shown as Ratsun Beerwa. Thus, there is overwhelming material on record of the trial court to show that the petitioner after his migration to Jammu has relocated himself to his original residence at Ratsun Beerwa. The contention of the petitioner that he is presently residing at Jammu is, therefore, not acceptable. Trp(Crl) No.01/2026 8) Regarding contention of the petitioner that he is being harassed by the trial court and its clerk, no particulars have been given by the petitioner in his petition in this regard. From a perusal of the trial court record it appears that the petitioner, while making his statement under Section 251 of the J&K Cr. P. C, has pleaded guilty, pursuant whereto, he is being directed by the learned trial court to liquidate the cheque amount to the respondent, which he has been unable to do so far. 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. 9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction dated 27.01.2026 shall stand vacated. 10) Copy of this order be sent to the trial court. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 06.07.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the Judgement is speaking: YES Whether the Judgement is reportable: YES/NO