IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 1 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CC.2438/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, KOTTARAKKARA. .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ L.SHEEJA, D/O. BASHEER, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PUNNAMANVAYAL, MADATHARA P.O., PERUNGANMALA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. E.MOHAMMED NAZIR, ALMANAR MANZIL, VALAVUPACHA, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK-691 506. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(Crl).No.1 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 05th day of April, 2011 ORDER This petition is for transfer of C.C.No.2438 of 2009 from the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara to the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumanad on the ground of inconvenience of petitioner/accused to travel from her place of residence at Kulathupuzha to Kottarakkara. 2. C.C.No.2438 of 2009 is for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act”). That case is initiated on a complaint filed by the first respondent. Petitioner contends that after her relationship with her husband got strained, he caused the first respondent to file a complaint against her. She has made a complaint to the Parippally police (coming within local limits of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur) complaining that her husband has committed offence under Sec.498A of the Act and that matter is under investigation. In the meantime, on the complaint of petitioner that her husband and the first respondent have committed offence in respect of the cheque which is the subject Tr.P(Crl).No.1 of 2011 -: 2 :- matter of C.C.No.2438 of 2009, petitioner filed Annexure-E, complaint to the Palode Police who have registered Crime No.687 of 2010 and are investigating the same. Palode police station comes within the local limits of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad. It is stated that petitioner is an advocate residing at Kulathupuzha which is nearer to Nedumangad and hence the request for transfer of C.C.No.2478 of 2010 to the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Nedumangad. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the circumstances stated request for transfer may be allowed. Learned counsel for first respondent submitted that petitioner is a lawyer practicing in the Courts at Nedumangad and the contention that it is inconvenient for her to go to Kottarakkara is not correct. Learned counsel submitted that distance from Kulathupuzha to Kottarakkara is only 47kms while to Nedumangad it is 77kms. Learned counsel also states that complaint preferred by the petitioner against her husband to the Parippally police is to be tried in the Court at Paravoor which is about 100kms away from her place of residence. According to the learned counsel the Court nearer to the place of residence of petitioner is that of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara. 3. From the contentions raised by learned counsel before Tr.P(Crl).No.1 of 2011 -: 3 :- me, it appears to me that Kottarakkara Court is nearer to the place of residence of petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Nedumangad. In these circumstances I do not consider it necessary that C.C.No.2438 of 2009 is to be transferred to the Court at Nedumangad. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted exemption from appearance in C.C.No.2438 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara. Certainly that is a matter which learned Magistrate has to decide. But, having regard to the fact that the offence involved is only under Sec.138 of the Act, no question of identity is involved and if petitioner filed an affidavit in the Court concerned stating that trial can be conducted in her absence through her counsel and she will not raise any objection thereafter on the ground that evidence was recorded in her absence, request for exemption from personal appearance shall be considered by the learned Magistrate having regard to the circumstances stated and the nature of the offence involved. With the above observation this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-