IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 46 of 2007() --------------------------- CC.1790/2006 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI,NILAVU,ARAMPUNNA, ELAMPAL,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPEPCTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION,THORUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM . 2. P.SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOACTE, SATHISH MANDIRAM,ARCHAL MURI,EROOR VILLAGE, ANCHAL KOOLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Tr.P.Crl.No.46 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August 2008 O R D E R C.C.Nos.395/2007 & 1790/2006, both pending before the J.F.M.C-3, Punalur, are in the nature of a case and a counter case. The petitioner is the de facto complainant/victim in one case whereas he is the accused in the other. The second respondent is the adversary of the petitioner in both these cases. He is an advocate practicing in the courts at Punalur. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He apprehends that he may not get justice if the trial of the case is held before the J.F.M.C-3, Punalur where the second respondent is practicing as a lawyer. No counsel from that Bar is willing to appear for the petitioner. The petitioner relies on newspaper reports to show that the Bar Association has taken sides in the dispute between the parties. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there may be a transfer of the case to any other court. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the transfer may be to any court outside Kollam district; but the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent does not ordinarily practice before courts at any centre other than Tr.P.Crl.No.46/08 2 PUnalur and that it is not necessary at any rate to transfer the case outside the district of Kollam. 2. In the course of discussions at the Bar, this court suggested that in view of the fact that the second respondent is practicing in the Punalur courts, it may be proper and necessary to transfer the case from the court at Punalur. After discussions at the Bar it is agreed that the case can be transferred to the nearest centre namely the court at Kottarakkara to allay any apprehensions which the petitioner does have. 3. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) C.C.Nos.1790/06 and 395/07 pending before the learned J.F.M.C-3, Punalur are transferred to the court of the J.F.M.C-I, Kottarakkara. c) The parties shall appear before the transferee court on 15/9/2008 without waiting for any further directions. The learned J.F.M.C-3, Punalur shall forthwith transmit records to the J.F.M.C-I, Kottarakkara. The records must reach the transferee court well prior to 15/9/2008. 4. Communicate the order to both Courts. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr