IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 18435 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Ramesh .. Petitioner. Versus The Inspector of Police Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station, Thiruthuraipoondi Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to withdraw the case in C.C.No.977 of 2005 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi and transfer the same to any competent Court. For Petitioner : M/s. V.Kasinatha Bharathi (No appearnce) For Respondent : Mr. R. Muniappa raj Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to transfer the case in C.C.No.977 of 2005 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi to any other Court. 2. The respondent police filed a case in Crime No.25 of 2005 dated 18.03.2005 against two accused persons on an alleged offence under Section 294-B, 324 IPC on a complaint given by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has stated that the two accused persons assaulted him on a dispute over money transaction relating to getting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jobs in a foreign country. Hence, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the respondent police and the same was registered as Crime No.25 of 2005 dated 18.03.2005. The complaint was enquired into and investigation also conducted by the respondent police and charge sheet was filed. The case is now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi. At this juncture, the petitioner seeks the transfer of the above case to any other court. Further, the petitioner has stated that the respondent police had filed the charge sheet mechanically, without scrutinising and examining the relevant persons and documents. The First Information Report also was not altered as per offence committed by the accused persons. The respondent police had not recorded Section 161 Statements in this case. 4. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent police in connivance with the accused persons had taken hasty steps to dispose of the matter without recording the statement of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is in abroad. So, the petitioner is the competent person to speak about the nature of offence committed by the accused. Unless the petitioner is provided an opportunity to depose regarding the manner in which offence took place, he will not be able to get justice and the accused persons will escape from the clutches of law. 5. The respondent police filed counter statement and narrated the prosecution case in the counter statement. The Sub-Inspector of Police has enquired the petitioner and recorded his statement. In the said statement, the petitioner has paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons along with his passport. The accused Ramachadran has not arranged the visa and also not returned the money. Hence, a dispute arose between them. Ramachandran and his brother Balasubramanian assaulted the petitioner. In the said case, four neighbours had given statement. The Government doctor who gave treatment to the petitioner, was also enquired. Accused persons were arrested and released on bail. Charge sheet was filed on 15.03.2005. Now, the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi. PW.2 and PW.3 were examined by the Court. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi to some other court. 6. Considering the petitioner's contention, respondent's counter statements, the arguments of the learned counsel for the State, the Court is of the view that the petitioner seeking a transfer of the case in C.C.No.977 of 2005 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi to some other Court, is not justified and proper, as there is absolutely no allegation against the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi, with regard to manner of conducting the case. Further, even though the petitioner/defacto complainant is in abroad, the respondent police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had proceeded with the prosecution case as dutiful police officer. Under the circumstances, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi. 2. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrte, Thiruvarur District. 3. The Inspector of Police Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station, Thiruthuraipoondi Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No. 18435 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 BVN(CO) PMK 27.08.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/