1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11423 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Mariappan : Petitioner / Defacto complainant Vs. 1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police Ambasamudram Police Station Tirunelveli District : 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Kandasamy 3. Mahadevan @ Mahesh 4. Mahesh 5. Velu @ Sornavel 6. R.Gomathisankar 7. Mariappan : Respondents 2 to 7 (R2 to R7 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 19.10.2011 in M.P(MD)No.2/11 in Crl.O.P.11423/11) PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the case in S.C.No. 88 of 2011 from the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District to any one of the Court having competent jurisdiction to try the said case within the Sessions Division of Madurai District and further direct such transferee Court to adjudicate and dispose of the above said case at the earliet. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Advocate O R D E R Seeking a direction to transfer the case in S.C.No. 88 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District to any one of the Court having competent jurisdiction, the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant in this case, has come forward with this Petition. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this Petition, the petitioner has made certain allegations as though the learned Presiding Officer of the Court made certain remarks about the merits of the case. The petitioner has therefore contended that he apprehends that justice may not be rendered to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. On the basis of the same, remarks were called for from the learned Judge, for which, the learned Judge has submitted her remarks, on 13.10.2011, wherein while denying all the allegations, in the last paragraph of the remarks, she has stated that she has no objection to transfer the case to any other Court. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents though contended that the grounds raised in the Petition are all false, would stoutly opposed this Petition. According to him, all the allegations made against the Presiding Officer are all false. He would further submit that after the case was reserved for Judgment, the trial has been stayed. 5. Having regard to the allegations made in the counter affidavit, in my considered opinion, without holding that the allegations are true, I am inclined to transfer the case to the file of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. It is made clear that this direction is made in the larger interest of both parties because two of the accused are Advocates and the de-facto complainant is also an Advocate. Since the Judge herself has expressed no objection for transfer, I am deem it appropriate to pass this order. 6. In the result, this Petition is allowed. The case in S.C.No. 88 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, is transferred to the file of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, who shall proceed with the further trial of the case and dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District 2. The Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. 3. The Inspector of Police Ambasamudram Police Station, Tirunelveli District 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate (SR.No.36709) Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 11423 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 vsg 19.10.2011 NSV/9.11.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/