1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.377 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 R.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City in crime No.62 of 2007 2.Balachandran 3.Santhiyagu 4.Deepan Sakkaravarthi 5.Radhamanalan @ Kannan 6.Sundaresan 7.Karthik @ Karthikeyan 8.O.M.Ganesh 9.S.Santharam 10.K.S.Chandrasekaran 11.Prabhu 12.Amarnath 13.Premnath ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in S.C.No.248 of 2010 from the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and transfer the same to any other Court other than Madurai District with a direction to complete the trial within a period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents :Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate( Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.N.Anantha Padmanaban or RR2 to 10 No Appearance for RR11 to 13 O R D E R This petition has been filed to withdraw the case in S.C.No.248 of 2010 from the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and transfer the same to any other Court other than Madurai District with a direction to complete the trial within a period that may be stipulated by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State for R1 and Mr.N.Anantha Padmanaban, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 10. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and a case has been registered in crime No.62 of 2007 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Madurai city and it was investigated further and charge sheet has been filed and thereafter, the case has been taken on file as P.R.C. and was committed to Sessions Court, Madurai and it was taken on file in S.C.No.248 of 2010. He would further submit in his argument that the case was pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and the date was fixed for trial on 21.12.2010 and in the meantime, on 20.12.2010, when the petitioner along with his family members were away at Chennai, the police personnel enquired about the petitioner with the watchman of the petitioner for serving the witness summons and they have also told the watchman that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is about to retire at the end of February 2011 and therefore the case has to be disposed of on or before his retirement and the police wanted to close the case before the retirement of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge Madurai. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit in his argument that it was a great shock to the petitioner and it was further learnt that the Principal District Judge also issued a warrant against the petitioner and his family members and a witness warrant was also issued against the petitioner, his wife and two others. He would further submit that the case could be closed at the mistake of the accused persons since they are very influential. After hearing the said explanation for serving the summons as told by the police men through the watchman of the petitioner, the petitioner was embarrassed very much for conducting the case before the said Court and therefore, the case may be transferred to some other Court competent to proceed with the trial. 5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that the allegations made against the said Sessions Judge is not correct. Moreover, the suspicion of the petitioner was only upon the statement of the watchman, who conveyed the message to the petitioner while the policemen had spoken at the time of serving the summons. Such hearsay allegations need not be believed and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for the transfer from the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. However, if for any reason, the case is transferred to some other Court, the State is ready to produce the witnesses and conduct the case in accordance with law. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 10/accused would submit in his argument that the petitioner is put to strict proof the allegations made by him. If for any reason, this Court is inclined to transfer the said case, it may https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 be done within the Madurai City and not outside the Madurai City. 7.I have paid much consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 8.The case in S.C.No.248 of 2010 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is sought to be transferred from the said Court to any other Court, competent to try the said case. Indisputably, the said case was taken on file on the committal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned on the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in crime No.62 of 2007. The petitioner is none other than the defacto complainant and he had set the law in motion. Now, the said case is ripe for trial before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. However, the petitioner/defacto complainant has stated certain things as spoken by the police men, who served the summons to the petitioner, expressing about the urgency of the disposal of the case to the watchman of the petitioner. No doubt, it is a hearsay. Unless, the affidavit of the watchman is produced, the said allegations said to have been spoken by the police, who were searching for the petitioner to serve the summons, cannot be considered as true. However, the petitioner has suspected some foul play by virtue of the alleged version spoken to watchman,regarding the alleged utterance of the policemen. In the said circumstances, the petitioner, as defacto complainant had developed certain mistrust over the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and therefore, he wants a transfer of the case from the said Court to some other Court. 9.However, the 1st respondent/State as well as the other respondents would categorically submit in their argument that they have no serious objection for transferring the case from the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai to the file of any of the competent Court within the Madurai City. 10.Considering the present stage of the case, this Court feels that the allegations made against the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, need not be gone into on merits for the purpose of passing any order of transfer. Therefore, without deciding the case on merits in this transfer petition, this Court is inclined to transfer the case from the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum F.T.C.No.III, Madurai for disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, the case in S.C.No.248 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is ordered to be transferred to the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum F.T.C.No.III, Madurai for disposal in accordance with law. 11.Accordingly, the transferor Court viz., the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is directed to transfer the papers from its file after duly indexing the papers to the office to the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai for disposal in accordance with law. The said transmission of records should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 be over within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after the receipt of the records from the said Court, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.3, is directed to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 12.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.3602 arul rl/6c – 9.2.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.377 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/