ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, under Section 410 of Cr.P.C to transfer C.C Nos. 627/2022, 628/2022, 629/2022, 630/2022, 631/2022, 751/2021 and 752/2021 from the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery.

2. The aforesaid order was passed based on an application submitted by respondents 2 to 7 herein. All the said cases arise from various crimes registered by the Cheruthuruthy Police Station, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery. Earlier, these cases were transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, on the ground that, at the relevant time, the judicial officer in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, was one of the juniors of the counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 herein. Later, respondents 2 to 7 approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to transfer the said cases back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court mainly on medical reasons. As per Annexure C order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, the said application was allowed, and accordingly, the cases referred above were made over to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery. This Crl.M.C is filed challenging the same.

3. Heard Sri. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja v, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of transfer and the conduct of trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, would cause serious prejudice to him. It is pointed out that, in some of the cases which are ordered to be transferred, the petitioner is the accused, and in some other cases, he is the defacto complainant.

5. The petitioner's grievance is that, right from the inception, respondents 2 to 7 were exerting influence upon the police officers and the cases registered against him were due to such influence. He also relies on the Annexure D report of Deputy Superintendent, Thrissur which contained very detailed discussions concerning the cases between the parties. According to him, the said report would clearly indicate the biased nature of the investigation officers. In such circumstances, it is pointed out that the Annexure C order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be interfered with.

6. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from either side. The learned Public Prosecutor specifically brought the attention of this Court to the reasons cited by the learned Magistrate for transferring the aforesaid case. It is specifically observed by the learned Magistrate that, petitioners 1 to 3 are senior citizens suffering from various ailments. The details of the ailments are also explicitly referred to in the said order, and it was observed that they are unable to travel and even walk without the help of other persons. The Court at Thrissur is situated 35 km away from the place of their residence, and therefore the continuation of the trial before the Court at Thrissur would cause severe difficulties to them. Another crucial aspect taken note of by the learned Magistrate while allowing the application was that, even though the jurisdictional Court to try the cases was the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, earlier, those cases were transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, solely on the reason that the judicial officer at the relevant time was one of the juniors of the counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7. It was taken note by the learned Magistrate that the said judicial officer is now transferred, and a new judicial officer has taken charge. Therefore, the situation which necessitated the transfer from the jurisdictional Court to another Court is not i