1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.11981 of 2011 1.Gurunathan 2.Logan Durai 3.Vijaya Raj .. Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District. Cr.No.627/2008 ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer:This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to transfer the case in S.C.No.120 of 2010 from the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam, Theni District to any one of the Court having competent jurisdiction within the Sessions Division of Madurai District and further direct such transferee Court to adjudicate and dispose of the above said case at the earliest. For Petitioners :Mr.R.Anand For Respondent :Mr.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER Seeking a direction to transfer the case in S.C.No.120 of 2010 from the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam, Theni District to any one of the Court having competent jurisdiction, the petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 3, have come up with the present petition. 2.It is seen from the records that the case is now listed for trial on 01.11.2011. In the petition, for transfer, the following grounds are raised. i)On 29.08.2011, during the course of proceedings of the Court, the learned Presiding Officer has expressed some views against the petitioners. ii)The second ground is the apprehension of the petitioners that the learned Judge will inflict punishment upon them. iii)The third ground is the apprehension that the learned Judge may not permit them to elucidate their defence. 3.On an order passed by this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam has submitted his marks on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 10.10.2011, wherein he stated that he never made any remarks and he is impartial. Hence the first ground made against the Presiding Officer goes out. Then the other two grounds are completely baseless. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the accused was questioned on the charges not elaborately. It cannot be a ground at the fag end of the trial i.e going to be conducted on 01.11.2011. Therefore, it is clear that the grounds raised are very vague. A case which is ripe for trial cannot be ordered to be transferred for mere asking. Unless very strong grounds are made out, it would infringe Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is not possible for this Court, under section 482 Cr.P.C, to transfer the case in S.C.No.120 of 2010 from the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam, Theni District to any one of the Court having competent jurisdiction. 5.In view of the above, I do not find any merit at all in this petition warranting transfer. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam, Theni District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11981 of 2011 13.10.2011 vs RJ/4.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/