ABDUL WAHEED MALIK Vs. NAGEENA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of Challan no. 117 of 2012 titled as Abdul Waheed Malik v. Nageena Bano from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Banihal to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. According to the averments made by the petitioner-accused, some false allegations have been levelled by Ms. Nageena Bano, in the complaint filed by her in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Banihal. She has alleged that on 04.09.2012 at 2.30 PM when she was going towards the B.D.O Office and reached at Chinar Gali then the petitioner-accused came in front of her and caught her from neck, gave beating with fists and blows. The petitioner-accused is also alleged to have used abusive language in order to outrage her modesty. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant directed that an investigation be conducted by Police Station, Banihal, and an FIR no. 150/2012 dated 04.09.2012, in that regard, was registered against the petitioner-accused under Sections 323/294/506/504/354/511 RPC. It has been insisted that an earlier FIR no. 154/2008, was also registered at Police Station, Banihal under Section 354 RPC. Investigation was conducted and the allegations of molesting levelled against him by Nageena Bano were found to be false. On the aforesaid basis, it has been argued that the petitioneraccused is being harassed by initiating criminal proceedings against him time and again on the similar set of facts. A copy of order dated 17.11.2011 acquitting the petitioner-accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Banihal has been placed on record as Annexure A .

(2.) Mr. A. M. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has argued that respondent is a Para Legal Volunteer and, as such, petitioner-accused is likely to be subjected to a bias by the Court. It is also submitted that once similar type of allegations have been found to be false then it is not possible to accept that the petitioner-accused would act in similar fashion.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the record, I am not impressed with the argument that the act which was alleged to have been imputed on 26.07.2008 could not be done by the petitioneraccused on a subsequent date in the year 2012. In any case, it may not constitute ground for transfer of proceedings from the Court Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Banihal to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. I also failed to find any substance in the argument that the respondent is working as Para Legal Volunteer and, therefore, she is likely to be dealt with favour. The institution of Para Legal Volunteers is entirely different and such volunteers are not directly under the Court. Even that reason would not cut any ice.