IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009()
1. REMA DEVI.C.V., W/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.DAMODHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. K.K.RAJAMANI, EMPLOYED AS CLERK AT
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.546 of
2006 pending before the J.F.M.C., Tellicherry. Respondents 1
and 2 herein are the accused in that case. Allegations have been
raised, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 465 I.P.C. in that case.
Trial in the case has not commenced. Allegation is raised in
respect of a cheque leaf in that case.
2. The same cheque is the subject matter of another
proceedings between the parties. The first respondent is the
complainant in that case and the petitioner herein is the accused.
That prosecution is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The same
is now pending before the learned J.F.M.C, Vadakara as S.T.C.
301 of 2006.
3. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer
that there may be a direction for transfer of S.T.C.301 of 2006
Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009
2
from the file of the J.F.M.C. Vadakara to the file of the J.F.M.C.
Tellicherry.
4. It is admitted that a similar application was filed as Tr.P.C. 55
of 2006, which was pending from 2006 to 2008. No steps were taken
to ensure the presence of the respondent/complainant/first respondent
in that proceedings. In these circumstances this court, after noting that
the peremptory directions have not been followed, dismissed the
petition on 26.6.2008 after turning down the request of the petitioner
for further time to take steps.
5. Long later, the petitioner appears to have woken up from the
slumber now to file this petition on 22.1.2009. It is admitted that the
trial in S.T.C. 301 of 2006 has already commenced and the chief
affidavit has already been filed. The petitioner now repeats the prayer
which was already raised in the transfer petition 55 of 2006 that the
case pending before the J.F.M.C. Vadakara may be ordered to be
transferred.
6. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. It appears to be
transparently evident that the petitioner is only playing for time. I find
Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 11 of 2009
3
no reason why even after dismissal of the transfer petition on
26.6.2008 the petitioner could and should have waited till 22.1.2009 to
file this petition. For the reason that the petitioner has not been alert in
taking action in the matter, I am satisfied that this petition has got to be
dismissed.
7. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm