IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 27 of 2009(F) --------------------------- ST.403/2008 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.R.SAI KUMAR, EDIT PLUS DIGITAL STUDIO, TC 25/620, THULASI BHAVAN, MUSIC ACADEMY ROAD, THYCAUDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHOBHA.K.C., T.C.8/1627, B.N.37, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = T.R.P.(CRL). NO. 27 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This transfer petition is filed with a prayer to transfer S.T.403/08 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram to any other Court. The averment is to the effect that the respondent and her lawyer friends has threatened the petitioner and they have openly declared that they will even kill the petitioner if he failed to pay the cheque. The obvious reasons is that the defacto complainant is a practicing lawyer and the Court is biased towards the respondent. I had called for a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and now it does not matter much for the reason the officer has already been promoted as a District Judge and he may not have a further opportunity to hear this case. Even otherwise, the officer has given an elaborate report stating that he has no such bias and things are done only in a proper way. T.R.P.(Crl) 27 OF 2009 -:2:- So far as the other apprehension is concerned the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has reported that from the address given in the complaint it is seen that the petitioner is running a studio in the Thiruvananthapuram city. So the contention that he is under threat also cannot be of much significance for the reason that it is not correct. Just because a practicing lawyer is the defacto complainant it does not in any way a reason for simply transferring a case unless there are warranting circumstances. I do not find any ground especially in the light of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's report and therefore the transfer petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-