IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009() --------------------------- STC.301/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- REMA DEVI.C.V., W/O.NARAYANAN, PARVATHI NIVAS, P.O.THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 & STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. V.DAMODHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHEROD DESOM, NELLIYANKARA AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.K.RAJAMANI, EMPLOYED AS CLERK AT PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KUTHUPARAMBA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.546 of 2006 pending before the J.F.M.C., Tellicherry. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the accused in that case. Allegations have been raised, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 465 I.P.C. in that case. Trial in the case has not commenced. Allegation is raised in respect of a cheque leaf in that case. 2. The same cheque is the subject matter of another proceedings between the parties. The first respondent is the complainant in that case and the petitioner herein is the accused. That prosecution is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The same is now pending before the learned J.F.M.C, Vadakara as S.T.C. 301 of 2006. 3. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that there may be a direction for transfer of S.T.C.301 of 2006 Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009 2 from the file of the J.F.M.C. Vadakara to the file of the J.F.M.C. Tellicherry. 4. It is admitted that a similar application was filed as Tr.P.C. 55 of 2006, which was pending from 2006 to 2008. No steps were taken to ensure the presence of the respondent/complainant/first respondent in that proceedings. In these circumstances this court, after noting that the peremptory directions have not been followed, dismissed the petition on 26.6.2008 after turning down the request of the petitioner for further time to take steps. 5. Long later, the petitioner appears to have woken up from the slumber now to file this petition on 22.1.2009. It is admitted that the trial in S.T.C. 301 of 2006 has already commenced and the chief affidavit has already been filed. The petitioner now repeats the prayer which was already raised in the transfer petition 55 of 2006 that the case pending before the J.F.M.C. Vadakara may be ordered to be transferred. 6. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. It appears to be transparently evident that the petitioner is only playing for time. I find Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009 3 no reason why even after dismissal of the transfer petition on 26.6.2008 the petitioner could and should have waited till 22.1.2009 to file this petition. For the reason that the petitioner has not been alert in taking action in the matter, I am satisfied that this petition has got to be dismissed. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm