SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. NABEESA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is respondent in M.C.No.76 of 2009 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the ACJM"). It would appear that learned ACJM initiated proceeding against the petitioner under Sec.31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act") which this Court quashed by Annexure- A, order. Learned ACJM was directed to dispose of the case within three months. While so, petitioner apprehensive a fair trial in the said case filed application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for transfer of the case. That application was allowed by Annexure-C, order. It is submitted that Annexure-C, order was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned ACJM and this court issued Annexure-D, order setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. This Court observed that if petitioner had any grievance, remedy was to approach this Court as this Court by Annexure-A, order directed learned ACJM to dispose of the case as provided under law. This Court while passing Annexure-D, order directed learned ACJM to proceed with the matter in compliance with the direction of this Court and made it clear that it is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him, if he is so advised. Based on that observation petitioner has filed this petition seeking transfer of the case from the Court of learned ACJM. Learned counsel invited my attention to Annexure-B, affidavit sworn by the petitioner before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate where it is stated that certain petitions filed by the petitioner before learned ACJM was not considered and it was kept pending. It is also stated that there is irregularity in examination of the witnesses. It is stated that it is highly irregular that out of four summoned witnesses, two were examined without issuing process (on the side of petitioner). According to the learned counsel, counsel appearing for petitioner was verbally abused by the learned ACJM on 04.12.2010.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through Annexure-B, affidavit. It is not as if whenever there is some allegation is made the case has to be transferred. For, an order of transfer on such allegations would cast a stigma on the officer concerned as to the procedure he has adopted and fairness of the trial he has conducted. Except in exceptional cases where it is palpably clear that there is no fair trial and the party concerned will not get justice from the Court concerned, it is not proper to order transfer of the case. On going through the affidavit and hearing counsel I do not find any such situation requiring transfer.