IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 25 of 2009 --------------------------------- [ CC.NO.1003/2007 OF J.M.F.C.,AMBALAPUZHA ] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BEENA ZACHARIAH @ BEENA JAMES, AGED 36 YEARS, NALPATHANCHIL HOUSE, AANAPARAMBAL NORTH P.O., TALAVADY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, MR.S.RAJEEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SATHEESAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MULLAPPALLI PARAMBIL, AANAPARAMBAL NORTH P.O., TALAVADY VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 3. RAJU, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PUNNASSERIL HOUSE, AANAPARAMBAL NORTH P.O., TALAVADY VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ---------------------------------------------- TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) No. 25 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This Transfer Petition is filed against the order in O.P (Tr.) 4/2009 of the District Judge, Alappuzha dated 2.3.2009. It was a petition filed seeking transfer of C.C. 1003/2007 and 1016/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The transfer petitioner is the defacto complainant and the case relates to offence under Section 294(b) and 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. I had earlier occasion to consider two criminal miscellaneous cases and there was a complaint by the accused in the case that due to absence of the defacto complainant, the case could not be proceeded with and there was a stage where even Non bailable warrant was issued against the defacto complainant to be present before the court. In order to have a peaceful solution, this court directed the defacto complainant to be present before the court and thereafter to fix the date of trial, so that there can be a disposal of the above case. But unfortunately Tr.Petition 25/2009 -2- things did not end there. A perusal of the letter filed in those cases would reveal that the defacto complainant had moved the court and authorities to change the Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the case atleast two or three occasions. So it appears that there is dissatisfaction for the defacto complainant. But the system of law has its own procedure and it is not personal likes or dislikes of an individual that governs the field. The conferring of jurisdiction in a court is a statutory mandate and when that is to be disturbed there must be convincing reasons to change the same. It is very easy to allege personal bias or other things against a judicial officer or anybody in charge of the litigation. But they have to be meticulously scrutinised and analysed. If the court is satisfied that there is nothing in such an allegation, the court should not entertain such transfers. I am conscious of the fact that justice not only should be done, it should be seen to be done as well. That is why in many cases when the conscience of the court is satisfied about the genuine grievance of a party it interferes and transfers the case. At the same time, it is equally important for the system to be preserved that on the mere asking Tr.Petition 25/2009 -3- of a party or on the mere apprehension of a party, a case should not be transferred. The attempt of the defacto complainant has been to postpone the litigation is evident from her conduct. She had moved the authorities for change of prosecutors. Now at last it has reached a stage where she has insisted for changing the court itself. It may not end when it goes to another court as well. I had read the report of the Magistrate in the previous criminal miscellaneous cases and I was convinced that she did not have any bias or prejudice against any of the parties. She was in a dilemma because the matter has been adjourned due to non co-operation of the parties. Now the matter has reached before the court and it is only just and equitable that the cases are disposed by the Magistrate where it is pending. I do not find any ground to transfer the case to another Magistrate's court. Therefore the Transfer Petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm