IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 868 of 2002() ------------------------ CC.186/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED/RES;PONDENT ---------------------------------- SUKUMARAN KARTHA S/O.NARAYANAN KARTHA, USHALAYAM,PULIKILLAM,MULEPADAM VAZHAKALA ROAD, CHERIMUTTTAPUZHA KARA,VAZHAKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. MANMADHAN KARTHA S/O.NARAYANAN KARTHA, RAHULNIVAS,PULIKILLAM,CHEMBUMUKKU FROAD, KADAMAKERY,CHEMBUMUKKU DESOM,CHERIMUTTAPUZHA KARA, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.868 of 2002-C -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341 and 324 IPC in C.C.NO.186 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva. Admittedly, respondent No.1 is the defacto complainant in the above case. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are brothers. It is on record that respondent No.1 is being tried for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC in S.C.284 OF 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Paravur. While respondent No.1 contends that the above calender case and sessions case are case and counter arising from the same incident, petitioner takes exception to the above contention. According to the petitioner he was only a mahazar witness in the sessions case. But the fact remains that respondent No.1 is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, on the allegation that the assault on his brother-in-law had resulted in his death, whereas in the case in which the petitioner is facing trial, the allegation of respondent No.1 is that the petitioner had restrained him in such a way as to inflict injuries on him. 3. But the question that has come up for consideration in this petition is whether the learned Magistrate is justified in allowing the petition filed by respondent No.1 for transfer of the calender case to the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Paravur, to be tried along with the said case, pending before the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge. By a non-speaking one word order the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer. A true photocopy of the petition and the order passed by the trial court thereon is produced as Annexure A2. Having perused the impugned order, I have no hesitation to quash the said order, since under law a Magistrate has no power to transfer a case pending on his file to another Court. Therefore, Annexure A2 order passed by the learned Magistrate is quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab