UTHAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to withdraw the entire case records pertaining to C.C.No.89 of 2010 pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatty and transfer the same to some other competent court for trial.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and on the basis of the complaint given by her, a case has been registered for the offence under Section 498(A) and 406 I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file in C.C.No.89 of 2010. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent is her husband and the 3rd and 4th respondents are her in-laws and since the case is pending in C.C.No.89 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and because of the matrimonial dispute, the petitioner/defacto complainant is residing with her parents at Gujarat and when they appeared before this Court for Mediation, they were subjected to threat and there was a telephonic threat also and he made allegations against the officer concerned and hence, he prayed for the transfer of the case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatty to any other Court. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decision in C.B.I. Vs. Hopeson Ningshen reported in 2010(5) SCC 115.

(3.) THIS Court, on 23.03.2011, called for a report from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatty and the report has been received. I have perused the materials as well as the report received from the learned Judicial Magistrate.