1980 P Cr (PLP)

Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing : 27th June, 1979. This order will dispose of eight transfer applications which are Cr. Misc. Nos. 99‑T/79, 100‑T/79 and 101‑T/79, and T. A. Nos. 181‑C/79, 182‑C /79, 183‑C/79, 184‑C/79 and 185‑C/79. There are the corresponding number of cases pending between the parties. Two relate to prosecution for having contracted a second marriage in violation of the Muslim Family laws Ordinance; the third is a criminal case under section 307, P.P.C. and the remaining five matters are all under the Family Courts Act. All these cases were pending before various Courts at Bhakkar, District Mianwali. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Mianwali, however in view of the allegation of murderous assault which had given rise to the case against the petitioner's party under section 307, P. P. C. transferred all the cases from Bhakkar to Mianwali. By the aforesaid applications filed in this Court, the cases are sought to be transferred back to Bhakkar.

2. The petitioner's party appears to be residing at Bhakkar whereas the respondents' party in village Kullurkot said to be 45/50 miles from Bhakkar, Mianwali, where the cases have been transferred, is said to be about 86 miles from Bhakkar.

3. The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners is on the ground of inconvenience. It is submitted that going by train or bus, will entail wastage of time and expense and will be highly incon venient particularly to the women who are also party in some of the cases. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities relied upon by the learned District and Sessions Judge are not on all fours and could be distinguished. He states that in Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and another v. Mst. Sakina and another (1971 S C M R 374) relied upon by the Court below, the Supreme Court had not ordered a transfer in a similar situation but had directed for providing police protection. He also submits that the case under section 307, P. P. C. was false and had been taken advantage of in getting the case transferred.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the case under section 307, P. P. C. was not false, that in that case the respondents' party had been attacked near the Court premises at Bhakkar, that Abdur Razzaq and his nephew Muhammad Younis had received stab‑injuries while Abdul Hadi had received a blunt‑weapon injury and that the case has been duly challaned and is pending trial. He submits on the authority of Munawar Ali Khan v. Najam Abbas and others (P L D 1969 Lah.346) that even in the case of an apprehension of assault, a transfer would be justified, whereas in the matter in hand, there had been an actual attack of a serious nature and as such the transfer was fully merited.

5. All cases should ordinarily be tried by Courts having jurisdiction over them and transfer should not be lightly made. The Criminal Pro cedure Code has in section 526 enumerated the conditions in which a transfer can be ordered, though section 25‑A of the Family Courts Act has not laid down any formal requirement for a transfer. However, if the Court is satisfied that there is an apprehension of the breach of peat 'e if the trial is allowed to proceed at the ordinary place of jurisdiction, its can transfer the case. The learned District and Sessions Judge; had a basis for ordering the transfer. His exercise of the discretion cannot be said to be against the dictate of the law. In the circumstance, I decline to interfere.

6. All the applications are, therefore, dismissed.

7. A copy of this order shall be placed in each of the files of the other transfer applications. Petition dismissed.