IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 107 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CC.386/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NILAMBUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.T. JOSEPH, S/O. PEZHATHINAL THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT PEZHATHINAL HOUSE, VAYALIL PEEDIKA P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM DT. CALICUT FORMERLY AT NILAMBUR AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM KUZHUMBIL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MANI, KOODARANHI AMSOM KOOMPARA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. GEORGE , AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, PULAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOOMPARA BAZAR P.O., KOODARANHI KOZHIKODE 3. THANKACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MATHALIKUNNEL SEBASTIAN, KOOMPARA BAZAR P.O., KOODARANHI KOZHIKODE 4. P.M. GEORGE, S/O.MATHAYI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT POOVVAM NILKKUNATHIL VEEDU, KOOMPARA, KODARNHI AMSOM, DESOM. 5. CHACKO YOHANNAN, AGED ABOUT 41, PANNIKKOTTIL PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARECODE, T.P (CRL) 107/2009 6. M. RAVEENDRAN, SUB REGISTRAR (RETD), BAVA NIVAS, KOTTAPPADI, NR. PRIVATE BUS -STAND, MALAPPURAM. 7. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. R2, R3 & R5 BY ADV.MR.P.SAMSUDIN R6 BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON 15/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(Crl.). No. 107 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of C.C.386 of 2006 from Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nilambur to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamangalam. 2. Based on a private complaint filed by the petitioners, the JFCM, Nilambur took cognizance of the offence as C.C.386/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code, even though the complaint mentioned offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 474 read with Section 149 IPC. 3. The complaint of the petitioner was that respondents 1 to 6 had fraudulently executed a deed of conveyance on his behalf obtaining a power of attorney in favour of the first respondent. Petitioner says that he Tr.P.(Crl.) 107/2009. 2 is ill and he is unable to travel frequently. He says that at present he is residing within the jurisdiction of JFCM, Kunnamangalam and it will be of considerable help to him. If the case is transferred to that court so that he can attend the court. He prays that he may not be able to travel to JFCM, Nilambur and that may affect the case. It is pointed out that the accused are not put to any difficulty and they do not suffer any injury by the transfer and it will be to their convenience also. On the basis of these allegations, the claim for transfer is made. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2, 3 and 5, they opposed the prayer. They pointed out that it was the plaintiff himself who had laid the complaint in the court at Nilambur and there is no justification now for him to say that it can be transferred to Kunnamangalam. It is also contended that even going by the averments in the complaint, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of JFCM, Kunnamangalam. They also deny the allegations in the complaint. According to them, the Tr.P.(Crl.) 107/2009. 3 complainant was aware of the transaction and it was with his consent that was effected. It is pointed out that the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter and there is no justification in seeking the transfer. 5. The sixth respondent has also filed a counter. He also opposed the plea for transfer. He points out that the complaint as against them was initially dismissed. But later on in revision, the matter was remanded and he was also included in the party of accused. He too says that the transfer is not in the interests of justice. 6. May be that the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of JFCM, Kunnamangalam. But one thing needs to be noticed that it is the petitioner who had invoked the jurisdiction of JFCM, Nilambur and that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of JFCM, Kunnamangalam. Except for the vague averment regarding the ailment, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is actually prevented from attending the court at Nilambur. No Tr.P.(Crl.) 107/2009. 4 acceptable reasons are given for the transfer and hence this petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.