IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 86 of 2007()
1. SHAMSUDHEEN.S., AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.PONNUKKUTTAN,
... Respondent
2. ANEESH, S/O.SADANANDAN,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
T.P.Crl.No.86 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police of the local
police station, allegedly on coming to know that some persons
were creating confusion in a public transport vehicle under the
influence of alcohol, proceeded to the vehicle and arrested two
persons. They happened to be lawyers. The petitioner allegedly
took action in accordance with law against such persons and
brought them to court. Before the learned Magistrate, the
lawyers complained that they were manhandled by the petitioner
and the petitioner was guilty of culpable conduct against them.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the
petitioner. The same is registered as C.C.No.1283/2007 and the
same is pending before the J.F.M.C-I, Thrissur. The case against
the lawyers concerned was also pending before the J.F.M.C-1,
Thrissur. That case has now been transferred at the request of
the learned Magistrate to the J.F.M.C, Chavakkad. The
petitioner has come to this court with a prayer that the case
against him i.e. C.C.No.12/07 may also be transferred to any
Tr.P.Crl.No.86/2008 2
other court. According to him, he apprehends hostile behaviour
on the part of the Bar if he were to appear before the learned
Magistrate in that case registered against him at the instance of
an Advocate. He further submits that there has been a non-
formal decision of the Bar Association under which members of
the Bar have decided not to appear and defend the petitioner.
The petitioner is therefore not able to secure a counsel from the
local Bar to defend him. For all these reasons, the petitioner
prays that the case may be directed to be transferred to the
J.F.M.C, Chavakkad. Of course, the first prayer of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is to transfer the case to any court at
Palakkad. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Notwithstanding the opposition of the learned
counsel for the respondent/complainant and notwithstanding the
preference of the petitioner to get the case transferred to any
court in Palakkad, I am satisfied that the interests of justice
would be served eminently by directing the transfer of the case
to the J.F.M.C, Chavakkad to which court the related case has
Tr.P.Crl.No.86/2008 3
admittedly been transferred by now.
3. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C.No.1283/2007 pending before the J.F.M.C-1,
Thrissur is transferred to the J.F.M.C, Chavara. The
J.F.M.C,Thrissur shall forthwith transmit the records to the
transferee court. Both parties shall appear before that court on
4/8/2008 without waiting for any further directions from the
court.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Tr.P.Crl.No.86/2008 4
Tr.P.Crl.No.86/2008 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007