IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1000 of 2009() ------------------------- CRMP(T.P).4086/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- K.MADHUSOODANAN,S/O.KAMALASANAN, INDEEVARAM, VANDANOOR,PAPPAMKODU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA. 2. R. SHIVADASAN, SUBRAHMANIYAM VILASOM, VANDANOOR,PAPPAMKODU,PERUMPAZHUTHOOR NEYYANTTINKARA. 3. SMT. SARASWATHY, M/S.R.SHIVDASAN, SUBRAHMNANIYAM VILASOM, VANDANOOR, PAPPAMKODU,PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1000 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P(T.P) No. 4086/2008. It was an application filed for transferring of C.C. 224/2004 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada to any other court at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and charge witness No. 1 in C.C. 224/2004. The 1st accused is a Police Constable attached to the SAP Camp, Peroorkada. The grievance is that the case is being adjourned and on 10.9.2008 after chief examination it was referred for cross examination at the request of the defence counsel. The allegation is that the learned Magistrate as well as the Assistant Public prosecutor blatantly supported the defence counsel. So many allegations are raised and the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire matters elaborately including the day to day appearance that has transpired in the court and also on perusal of the proceedings paper. The learned Sessions Judge was satisfied that there was no meritorious contentions which Crl.M.C. 1000/2009 -2- requires consideration for transfer. The court also opined that the apprehension that “since the 1st accused is a police constable it is very difficult to conduct the case in that court is also without any basis because that threat will be even if the case is transferred to some other courts as well because he is a police constable and he is working in Thiruvananthapuram at present”. Ultimately the court held that the apprehension of the transfer petitioner is only imaginary and without any basis and the court opined that the transferring of the case may affect the morale of the institution as such. So I do not want to interfere with the factual finding rendered by the court. It must be born in mind by the Judicial officer who is in charge of the litigations that not only justice should be done and it should be seen to be done. Some of the litigants are very sensitive and they may get perturbed even at the slightest provocation. The court has to balance it and in such type of cases it has to control the court in such manner that the said apprehension is not further strengthened by a word of the court. I also direct the court below not to have any apprehensions because of the filing of the transfer petition and it Crl.M.C. 1000/2009 -3- has to apply its mind most judiciously and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. With these observations the Crl.M.C is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm