Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SEBY C ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
SONY LINOS – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.44 of 2025 | Crime No.537/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SEBY C ANTONY
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Transfer petitions require substantive grounds; mere apprehensions of bias are insufficient for case reassignment.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 84 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 407 - Transfer of case based on apprehension of bias - Petitioner seeks transfer from Additional District Court, alleging unfair treatment - Court finds no merit in claims, citing lack of basis for transfer and proper procedure followed by the lower court - Transfer petition dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Allegations against court staff - Court investigates claims made by petitioner regarding behavior of court officials - Report submitted indicates no misconduct by staff - Court emphasizes adherence to proper protocol in courtroom conduct. (Paras 3-6)
(C) Jurisdiction and case transfer - Court affirms that sufficient grounds must be presented for transferring cases - Lacks substantial justification in present case - Dismissal emphasizes independence of judicial process. (Paras 1, 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947 TR.P(CRL.) NO. 44 OF 2025 CRIME NO.537/2024 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.1348 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA.
PETITIONER(S):
SEBY C ANTONY AGED 59 YEARS ARUKATTIL HOUSE PATHIRAPALLY PO POONKAVU, PIN - 688521 BY SEBY C ANTONY(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENT(S):
1 SONY LINOS AGED 30 YEARS PULIYEZHATH HOUSE CHETTIKAD PATHIRAPALLY ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688521
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688008
3 VIPIN CV AGED 30 YEARS S/O VARGHESE I CHARANGAT HOUSE CHETTIKAD PATHIRAPALLY ALAPPUZHA 688521 SR PP, SRI HRITHWIK C S THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------
Tr.P.(Crl.) No.44 of 2025 -------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025
ORDER
The above Tr.P.(Crl.) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Transfer the SC-1348-2024 & Crl MP-Crl MC -119-2025 cases from ADC III Alappuzha to any other court authorized to have Jurisdiction as special courts under RPWD Act 2016 Section 84 , or to this High Court as under Section 447 C (iv) of BNSS ( Section 407 C (iv) of the CRPC ).
b) Pass any other further order/s as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case as relief in the interest of justice”[SIC]
2. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.537/2024 of Alappuzha North Police Station, which is now pending as S.C. No.1348/2024 before the Additional District & Sessions Court – III, Alappuzha. Petitioner apprehend that he will not get justice from the Additional District & Sessions Court – III, Alappuzha and he wants to transfer the case from that court to any other court or to the High Court.
3. The petitioner appeared in person before this Court. Since there is some averments in paragraphs L to N of the Statement of Facts of the Transfer Petition against the officers of the court, this Court directed the Registry to get a remarks about the above averments of the petitioner from the jurisdictional court. A detailed report is submitted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge – III, Alappuzha. It will be better to extract the same:
“With reference to the above, I may report that I have called for explanation from the Bench Clerk of this court regarding the allegations in paragraph 'L' of the petition in TR.(P)(CRL.)44 of 2025 of the Honble High Court of Kerala and that the Bench Clerk (Smt.Raji Sreedhar) has filed a detailed explanation regarding the same. She has reported that the petitioner in the aforesaid petition, who was the defacto complainant in SC 1348/2024 of this court, had appeared before this court on 22.05.2025 and that he had occupied the seat intended for lawyers; it has been further stated that this court had directed him to vacate the said seat and to occupy a seat intended for the witnesses; but, on the next hearing date assigned to the said case (ie. on 24.05.2025), at about 10 am., the complainant approached the Bench Clerk and enquired about the reason for removing him from the seat intended for lawyers; she had further stated that she had informed the defacto complainant of the fact that he had occupied the seat intended for the lawyers appearing before this court and that it was the reason for giving such a direction for vacating the said seat. Thereupon, he informed the Bench Clerk that he was also an Advocate and he could also occupy the seats intended for lawyers.
2) In this connection, I may report that the Bench Clerk had informed me about the queries made by the complainant herein and that I had instructed her to inform the defacto complainant that if he ha
