IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28932 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 15, 2009 Munish Kumar. …Petitioner Versus Bakshish Singh. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in a private complaint filed against him by Bakshish Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is pending in the Court of Mr. Kapil Dev Singla, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phul. A transfer petition filed by the petitioner for transfer the matter to another Court of competent jurisdiction did not find favour with the learned Crl. Misc. No. M 28932 of 2009 Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who rejected it vide order dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has filed the present plea before this Court for that very relief. The averment, made in the course of the petition, is that he does not expect justice from the Presiding Officer who had held out a threat in the open Court that the petitioner – accused should either pay up the demanded amount of Rs. Eight lacs, along with interest, or be ready to be jailed. The further averment is that the Presiding Officer is annoyed with him as the filing of the transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge had come to his notice. Insofar as the latter plea is concerned, it is plainly illogical. A party cannot first file a plea and, then, apprehend “reprisal” at the hands of the Presiding Officer. Even otherwise, the entertainment of an apprehension just on that account is foreign to the Indian system of dispensation of justice. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the averment made by the petitioner – accused that the Presiding Officer had threatened to jail the petitioner if he did not come to terms with the complainant by paying off the demanded amount, along with the interest. This Court has no reasons to differ with the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 2 Crl. Misc. No. M 28932 of 2009 It would be relevant to point out that the petitioner had filed a transfer petition earlier as well which came to be declined and that order was allowed to attain finality as no challenge was posed thereto at the hands of the petitioner – accused. In the totality of circumstances of the case, I find no force in the transfer plea. Dismissed. October 15, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3