IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 8 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CC.150/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ M.C. KURIACHAN, ADVOCATE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.M.V. CHERIAN, `MOUNT VIEW', MANAPULLY KAVU, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE ----------------------------------------------------- 1. GLADYS, D/O.MARY STELLA RODRIGUES, `STELLADALE', DHONI, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, ALONG WITH TR.P (CRL.) NO.9 OF 2011 AND TR.P(CRL.) NO.10 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(Crl) No.8, 9 & 10 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner, common in all cases seeks transfer of three cases pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad to any other court beyond that District. Dispute primarily is between petitioner-husband and his wife (respondent No.1). Petitioner is a practicing lawyer at the Palakkad Bar. On a complaint filed by respondent No.1, himself and parents are facing trial in C.C. No.55 of 2009. Petitioner has filed a private complaint against the first respondent and her mother for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Code. That case was taken on file as C.C. No.150 of 2006. Petitioner has also filed S.T. No.489 of 2008 for offence punishable under Sec.500 of the Code against first respondent, her mother and others. All the above cases are pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. In the meantime petitioner has filed a petition before Family Court, Palakkad against the first respondent seeking divorce. Grievance of petitioner is that when he appeared as witnesses in C.C. No.150 of 2006 (where first respondent and mother are the Tr.P(Crl.) No.8, 9 & 10 of 2011 -: 2 :- accused), learned Chief Judicial Magistrate insisted him to settle the cases which he was not amenable to for his own reasons. Petitioner in such a situation felt apprehensive about the result of the cases and wanted transfer of the cases referred above from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to any court outside Palakkad District. Learned counsel requested that the cases may be transferred to a court beyond that District. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. As fairly conceded by learned counsel, in C.C. No.55 of 2009 P.Ws.1 to 4 are already examined while in C.C. No.150 of 2006, the preliminary stage is over, charge has been framed and the case is posted for further evidence. In S.T. No.489 of 2008, plea of respondent No.1 and others (as accused) has been recorded. Thus trial has commenced in all the three cases and at least in two cases it has progressed much. 3. As I stated the dispute primarily is a family dispute involving the husband and wife. If learned Chief Judicial Magistrate thought that the cases could be settled and allegedly insisted petitioner to do so, that need only be understood in the Tr.P(Crl.) No.8, 9 & 10 of 2011 -: 3 :- right sense as an attempt to unite the disrupted family particularly involving a member of the Bar. Though in relation to proceeding pending in family courts a learned Judge of this Court in Balachandran v. Meena (1999 (1) KLT 769) has opined that having regard to the object of constituting Family Court if the Judge has insisted for a settlement (and to some extent is hostile to the husband) that cannot be taken as a ground to transfer the case. It is true that the cases in the present petitions are not pending in the Family Court. But as I stated, it is basically a family dispute and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may have made an earnest attempt to avoid disruption of the family by reuniting petitioner and the first respondent. I do not find reason to think that the insistence to settle the cases if any, is for any other reason whatsoever. I am also not inclined to think that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will not dispose of the cases in accordance with its merit, notwithstanding that petitioner was not able to oblige to the direction if any for settlement of the dispute for his own reasons. Every and any apprehension must be genuine, substantial and real. No such apprehension is involved in these cases. As such I am not inclined to entertain these petitions. Tr.P(Crl.) No.8, 9 & 10 of 2011 -: 4 :- Resultantly with the observation that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall dispose of the cases on its merit these petitions are dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv