IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2896 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.668/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- BIJI MATHEW, THUNDATHIL VEEDU, PULLOOPRAM, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- LAILA JACOB, THELAPPURATHU VEEDU, AITHALA, PO. RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2896 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a protest private complaint alleging commission of theft in respect of a cheque leaf. That case is pending before the JFMC-I, Ranni as C.C.668 of 2008. The respondent herein is the accused in that case. 2. Alleging that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been committed in respect of that cheque, the respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioner and the said case is pending before the JFMC-II, Ranni as C.C.135 of 2008. There is yet another criminal prosecution pending between the parties before the JFMC -II, Ranni as C.C. 99 of 2008. The petitioner is the complainant and the respondent herein is the accused in that case. 3. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that direction may be issued to ensure that all the three cases are disposed of by the same court. The allegations in C.C. 668 of Crl.M.C.No. 2896 of 2008 2 2008 and C.C. 135 of 2008 appear to be in the nature of allegations and counter allegations and there is merit in the request that those two cases must be disposed of by the same court. So far as C.C. 99 of 2008 is concerned, except that the criminal litigation is between the same parties, I am unable to find any common feature that requires or warrants disposal of that case along with the other two cases. 4. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to ensure disposal of all these three cases by the same court and consequent direction for transfer to facilitate such disposal by the same court. 5. Virtually the prayer is one for transfer, which is an intra- sessions division transfer. Proviso to Section 407(2) Cr.P.C. is a clear bar to this application made by the petitioner. By submitting that both cases must be disposed of by the same court, the petitioner cannot camouflage the real prayer and make it appear that a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is necessary. The requirement of disposal by the same court is only the foundation on which the prayer for transfer can Crl.M.C.No. 2896 of 2008 3 be made. The proviso to Section 407(2) Cr.P.C. is thus a clear bar to this application. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the petitioner's prayer to get C.C. 135 of 2008 pending before the JFMC -II, Ranni and C.C. 668 of 2008 pending before the JFMC-I, Ranni disposed of by the same court appears to be absolutely justified and the petitioner can make a request to the learned Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C. or to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the administrative side under Section 410 Cr.P.C. to ensure that all cases are taken up by the same court for disposal. (R. BASANT) Judge tm