IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 26 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.150/2006 of C.J.M.PALAKKAD CMP.3165/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.C.KURIACHAN S/O. M.V.CHERIAN, MOUNT VIEW MANAPULLY KAVU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 2. GLADIS V.R.,D/O.,MARY STELLA RODRIGUES STELLA DALE, HILL VIEW NAGAR, DHONI P.O. PALAKKAD. 3. MARY STELLA RODRIGUES W/O.RODRIGUES STELLA DALE, HILL VIEW NAGAR, DHONI P.O. PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.Petn(Crl).No. 26 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer at Palakkad is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.150/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. The accused in the case are none other than his own wife(1st respondent herein) and the mother- in-law(2nd respondent herein). The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent herein committed theft of the original R.C.Book of his motor cycle, his driving license and identity card and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The petitioner sought for a transfer of the case to some other court outside the Palakkad Head Quarters by moving the Sessions Judge, Palakkad under Section 408 Cr.P.C. As per Annexure A1 order dated 29.10.07, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said application taking note of the fact that the petitioner himself was the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the third respondent (2nd respondent herein), who the mother-in-law of the petitioner is an aged woman who finds it difficult to travel all the way in case the Tr.Ptn.No.26 of 2008 2 case is transferred. 2. It is admitted that in proceedings for divorce between the parties are pending before the Family Court, Palakkad, this court did not allow the petitioner's request for transfer of that case but instead directed that the proceedings shall be conducted in camera in the Family Court, Palakkad. 3. I see no reason why a similar direction cannot be given in this case as well. Accordingly, while confirming Annexure A1 order passed by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, it is clarified that C.C.No.150/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad shall be permitted to be conducted in camera so that much of the embarrassment for the parties can be avoided. This petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj