IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 7 of 2008() -------------------------- ST.974/2007 of J.M.F.C.,ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- JAYA THOMAS, DIRECTOR, M/S. KAIZEN HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., SHAN APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. RAJU BHASKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, VIPPATTU HOUSE, PINDIMANA KARA, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. KAIZEN HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., SHAN APARTMENT, OPP. MAIN AVENUE CENTRE HOTEL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.P.T.JOSE FOR R1 THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- T.P.Crl.No.7 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the second respondent in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate in 2007. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. 2. According to the petitioner, even though it is averred in the complaint that the transaction took place and the cheque was handed over at Adimaly, as a matter of fact, the transaction was taken place only at Ernakulam. There are connected matters pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. In these circumstances, the petitioner submits that the case pending against her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly as S.T.No.974/2007 may be ordered to be transferred to any court at Ernakulam. 3. The application is stoutly opposed. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are specific assertions in the complaint which would reveal that the transaction was taken place within the jurisdiction of the court at Adimaly and not within the jurisdiction of the court at Tr.P.Crl.No.7/08 2 Ernakulam. The mere fact that some other proceedings between the parties are pending at the courts at Ernakulam is no ground to direct transfer of the said case to Ernakulam. 4. There is no contention before me that the averment in the complaint will not refuse jurisdiction for the Adimaly court to proceed with the matter. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner is ill and sick, absolutely no material is produced in support of that assertion also. I find merit in the opposition of the learned counsel for the respondent. I am satisfied that this transfer petition only deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate observation may be made in the interests of justice to avoid unnecessary hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner, a woman, now finds a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing her. It is prayed that directions may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when she surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file an application for exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C after she enters appearance. Tr.P.Crl.No.7/08 3 6. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]. 7. This transfer petition is accordingly dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Needless to say, the application for exemption if filed by the petitioner to permit her to appear through her counsel will also have to be considered in accordance with law and expeditiously by the learned Magistrate. I find no reason for the learned Magistrate to insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner on all dates of posting. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Tr.P.Crl.No.7/08 4 Tr.P.Crl.No.7/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007