IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(Crl) No. 39 of 2006()
1. S. SURENDRA, S/O.LATE RAMA MOGERA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ROHINI, D/O. LATE B.M. ISHWARA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. NARAYANA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Tr.P.(Crl.).No.39 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of August 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused in a prosecution for
offences punishable under Section 417 I.P.C. The matter is
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod.
Proceedings were initiated as early as in 2002. The petitioner
has come to this court with this petition complaining that the
petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice at the hands of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Why does he have that
apprehension? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is compelling the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- and settle the
disputes. This suggestion by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has instilled in the mind of the petitioner a
reasonable apprehension that he may not get justice at the hands
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is hence that this
application for transfer is made. The respondent is served.
There is no representation for the respondent today before me.
Tr.P.(Crl).No.39/2006 2
2. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The report
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was called for. In the
report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate submits that there
was an attempt to settle the disputes. Parties had agreed to
settle the matter for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. There was no
compulsion on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
to anyone to settle the dispute. It is for the parties to settle the
disputes if they want. If they do not want to settle the dispute,
they can go for trial. Then the matter will be decided by the
court on the basis of the materials placed before court. Merely
because, earlier the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has
accepted the suggestion of the counsel that the matter can be
settled for Rs.30,000/-, it does not at all mean that the court will
be prejudiced or will in anyway be influenced by any
circumstances other than tangible and admissible data adduced
before court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, of course
proceeded to assert that he has no objection in the case being
transferred to any other court.
3. I have considered all the inputs. If there be
reasonable apprehension of prejudice, a lenient view can
Tr.P.(Crl).No.39/2006 3
certainly be taken in favour of the petitioner who seeks transfer.
But the apprehension has got to be reasonable. The
apprehension cannot be pressed into service merely to delay the
proceedings and get the case transferred from the Presiding
Officer who has already taken up trial has proceeded half way. I
am not at all satisfied that there is any reason to justify the
prayer for transfer.
4. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be
a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of
the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of three months from the date on which a copy of this
order is placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
5. The registry shall communicate the order to the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Tr.P.(Crl).No.39/2006 4
Tr.P.(Crl).No.39/2006 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007