IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 14 of 2008() --------------------------- C.C NO. 318/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PUNALUR PETITIONER: PETITIONERS ------------------------------ NIMI NAIR AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR KOZHIYATHU VEEDU, ANGADICKAL THEKKU, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. G.HARIKRISHNAN S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR KAIPPALLIL EDAMULLACKAL, ANCHAL. 2. SUBHA,W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR KAIPPALLIL EDAMULLACKAL, ANCHAL. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR KAIPPALLIL EDAMULLACKAL, ANCHAL. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 431 0F 2006 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION) BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 14 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 431/2006 of Anchal Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, seeks a transfer of the case now pending as C.C No. 318/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur, to any other court. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband (the 1st accused) and her father-in-law (the 3rd accused) are both lawyers practising before the Punalur Court and even though she had made a request before the Punalur Magistrate on the first date of her examination that she may be given some time to move the appropriate court for transferring the case, that was not heeded to and she was compelled to give evidence and the evidence for the other prosecution witnesses also was taken much against her objection. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3, submitted that already 16 witnesses have been examined and that it may be harsh to transfer the case at this stage of the proceedings. Alternately, it was submitted that in case Tr.P.C No. 14/2008 : 2: this Court were to order transfer of the case, the same may be to a Magistrate at Kollam. 4. In fact the 1st accused, who is the husband of the petitioner, had approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No. 54/2008 for an early disposal of the above case alleging that he is a practising lawyer and had also sought personal exemption from appearance before the Magistrate. The said petition filed as Crl.M.C. No. 54/2008 was disposed of by this Court without ordering notice on the petitioner herein by directing the Magistrate to dispose of the case within three months of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. The fact that accused Nos.1 and 3 are advocate practising before the very same trial court can certainly place them at an advantage before the Magistrate. The 1st accused had also obtained an order behind the back of his wife (the petitioner herein) for an early disposal of the case by the Punalur Magistrate. Whatever may by the reason which prompted him to file the said petition, his application indicates that he had obtained a direction to the effect that the Punalur Magistrate should dispose of the case within the time-frame fixed by this Court. Considering the fact that this is a case involving the alleged commission of matrimonial cruelty, I see no reason why the prayer in Tr.P.C No. 14/2008 : 3: the petition should not be granted. The petitioner is a resident of Adoor and is stated to be working at Ernakulam. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that in case this Court is inclined to transfer the case it may be to Kollam. I see no relevance for the choice mentioned by respondents 1 to 3. All of them are residents of Anchal within the jurisdiction of the Punalur Magistrate. Accordingly, C.C. No. 318/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur shall stand transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor who shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest and at any rate within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The registry shall forward a copy of this order to both JFCM, Punalur as well as the JFCM, Adoor for information and compliance. I make it clear that the transferee court need not conduct a de novo trial. The witnesses whose examination is already completed need not be examined again. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Tr.P.C No. 14/2008 : 4: