Judgment : The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher in St.Francis Xavier Elementary School, Muthazhagupatti. He, it is said, loved and married a nun-teacher Melcida of the same school. She was stated to be a nun of congregation of St. Anne, Trichy, which is managing the said school. The school management and the church were stated to have opposed the marriage. His wife, however, resigned from the said school and took up appointment in another school. He, however, continues to work as a teacher in the said school, despite all sorts of opposition, threat and intimidation from the school management. 2. Sahayam and Britto, tiny tots, aged about eight years, it is said, were studying in III Standard in the said school. The petitioner is said to be their class teacher. On 9. 1993 at 1 P.M. during lunch time, he was alleged to have sent for the girl Sahayam to come to the last room where the petitioner was stated to have removed his pant zip and asked her to suck his male organ and it was witnessed by other students also through a window. The other girl Britto was also stated to have done the same feat, as has been done by the other girl, on the previous day, namely, 9. 1993. 3. The parents of the girl Sahayam were stated to have protested the conduct of the petitioner and consequently, a complaint was stated to have been Lodged before the Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), Dindigul Town South Police Station (respondent), which was in turn, registered, for alleged offences under Secs.354 and 377, I.P.C. in Crime No. 825 of 1993. After investigation a final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. had been laid, which was taken as C.C.No.272 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. 4. After copies of the documents have been furnished to the petitioner-accused, it appears, he filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 1885 of 1994 praying for his discharge, which was, however, dismissed, by order dated 26. 1994. 4. After copies of the documents have been furnished to the petitioner-accused, it appears, he filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 1885 of 1994 praying for his discharge, which was, however, dismissed, by order dated 26. 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner resorted to the present former action praying for the transfer of the said case to any other Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Madurai or in any other adjoining district alleging that the children of the said Magistrate were studying in the school; that the management of the said school is also openly proclaiming that they will see that the case ends in conviction and that under such circumstances, he may not be having a fair and impartial trial before the said Magistrate. 5. He also filed Cr.M.P.No. 4680 of 1994 (the latter action) praying for stay of all further proceedings, pending disposal of the transfer petition. In the said petition, this Court, on 8. 1994, passed an order as below: “Notice returnable by 18. 1994. Interim stay till then.” 6. Arguments of Mr.S. Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E. Raja learned Government Advocate were heard. 7. A report from the said Magistrate had been called for in respect of certain allegations made in the affidavit it filed in support of the transfer petition. The said Magistrate, in fact, sent a report. She would, however, admit in her report that her children are studying in the said school and that under no circumstances, any influence had been brought to bear upon the Management of the said school to seek the admission of her children in the said school. 8. The fact that the children of the said Magistrate are studying in the said school by itself is not a factor for the transfer of this case to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The Presiding Deity of a Court is made sternest of materials and it cannot be expected to cow down to pleasures, coming from any quarter whatever. It has to sift, scan and analyse all the materials placed before it, before ever it records any finding. The Presiding Deity of a Court is made sternest of materials and it cannot be expected to cow down to pleasures, coming from any quarter whatever. It has to sift, scan and analyse all the materials placed before it, before ever it records any finding. In the case on hand, it appears that two parents of the tiny-tot studying in the said school in a class, to which the petitioner happens to be the teacher, had got to complain as to the unfortunate events that had happened to their children at the hands of the petitioner. In the normal run of things, the parents cannot be expected to foist a case upon the very teacher in the school, where their kids are studying, unless such an event happened. They cannot even be threatened or coerced by the school management to give a complaint of the nature in question as against the petitioner. To say that the school management proclaimed that somehow or other, some conviction, could be secured at the hands of the said Magistrate cannot be anyone other than the one invented for the purpose of serving as a cause for the transfer of the case to any other court. In case the case is transferred to a competent court in a different district, there will be untold agony and suffering, not only to the parents, but also to the tiny tots studying in the school, in the sense of making innumerable trips to the court, to which the case is transferred for the purpose of trial. In this view of the matter, I rather feel that no case is made out for the transfer of the case, as sought for. 9. The former petition, as such deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the latter petition is also dismissed.