IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 46 of 2007()
1. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. P.SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOACTE, SATHISH
For Petitioner :SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Tr.P.Crl.No.46 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August 2008
O R D E R
C.C.Nos.395/2007 & 1790/2006, both pending before the
J.F.M.C-3, Punalur, are in the nature of a case and a counter
case. The petitioner is the de facto complainant/victim in one
case whereas he is the accused in the other. The second
respondent is the adversary of the petitioner in both these cases.
He is an advocate practicing in the courts at Punalur. According
to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He apprehends that
he may not get justice if the trial of the case is held before the
J.F.M.C-3, Punalur where the second respondent is practicing as
a lawyer. No counsel from that Bar is willing to appear for the
petitioner. The petitioner relies on newspaper reports to show
that the Bar Association has taken sides in the dispute between
the parties. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there may
be a transfer of the case to any other court. The learned counsel
for the petitioner prays that the transfer may be to any court
outside Kollam district; but the learned counsel for the second
respondent submits that the second respondent does not
ordinarily practice before courts at any centre other than
Tr.P.Crl.No.46/08 2
PUnalur and that it is not necessary at any rate to transfer the
case outside the district of Kollam.
2. In the course of discussions at the Bar, this court
suggested that in view of the fact that the second respondent is
practicing in the Punalur courts, it may be proper and necessary
to transfer the case from the court at Punalur. After discussions
at the Bar it is agreed that the case can be transferred to the
nearest centre namely the court at Kottarakkara to allay any
apprehensions which the petitioner does have.
3. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C.Nos.1790/06 and 395/07 pending before the
learned J.F.M.C-3, Punalur are transferred to the court of the
J.F.M.C-I, Kottarakkara.
c) The parties shall appear before the transferee court
on 15/9/2008 without waiting for any further directions. The
learned J.F.M.C-3, Punalur shall forthwith transmit records to
the J.F.M.C-I, Kottarakkara. The records must reach the
transferee court well prior to 15/9/2008.
4. Communicate the order to both Courts.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr