Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 83 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 2760/2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO 1:
RAJEEV P.V
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVAN, PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, CHERUTHUTHY
VILLAGE, NEDUMPURA P.O, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 679531
BY ADVS.
RAJIT
RAMAKRISHNAN M.N.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND PETITIONERS:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2
JAYATHILAKAN
AGED 82 YEARS
S/O DEVAN, MAHISHMATHI RESIDENCE, PADINJAKKARA
HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679531
3
RADHA
AGED 70 YEARS
D/O KUNJIKUTTAN VAIDYAR, MAHISHMATHI RESIDENCE,
PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679531
4
SULOCHANA
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O KUNJIKUTTAN VAIDYAR MAHISHMATHI RESIDENCE,
PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679531
MANIKANDAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN, MAHISHMATHI RESIDENCE,
PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679531
6
SUMITHA
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O MANIKANDAN, MAHISHMATHI RESIDENCE,
PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
679531
7
VISWANATHAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAINKULAM
VILLAGE, PANJAL DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679531
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV SREEJA V -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
The transfer of cases under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. based on medical reasons is valid and does not require interference unless there is a clear apprehension of prejudice to the accused or witnesses.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF CASES - SECTION 410 CR.P.C - MEDICAL REASONS - [The court held that the transfer of cases from one court to another under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) based on medical reasons of the accused is valid and does not require interference.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, transferring seven cases from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, based on the medical reasons of the accused (respondents 2 to 7). The petitioner argued that the transfer would cause prejudice to him as he was the accused in some cases and the de facto complainant in others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of cases was justified based on the medical reasons of the accused, who were senior citizens suffering from various ailments and unable to travel to the court in Thrissur, which was 35 km away from their residence. The court also noted that the earlier transfer of cases from the jurisdictional court to Thrissur was based on the fact that the judicial officer at the time was a junior of the counsel appearing for the accused, but that situation no longer existed.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of cases under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. based on medical reasons is valid.2. Whether the apprehension of prejudice to the petitioner due to the transfer of cases is sufficient to interfere with the transfer order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 410 of Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to transfer cases for various reasons, including the convenience of the accused or witnesses. The court held that the medical reasons of the accused in this case constituted a valid ground for transfer and that the apprehension of prejudice to the petitioner was not sufficient to interfere with the transfer order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the transfer order, holding that it was justified based on the medical reasons of the accused and that the apprehension of prejudice to the petitioner was not sufficient to interfere with the order.
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
