ORDER: The above petition is filed under Sec.407 of Crl.P.C. to withdraw and transfer a case in C.C.No.817 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur to any other court of competent jurisdiction in any other district. 2. The petitioner, who belongs to Kerala State, is an accused in the above case punishable under Secs.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint preferred by the respondent herein. The petitioner has narrated the various facts and circumstances under which he has issued the cheque and reasons for approaching this Court seeking transfer. I do not propose to dwell upon all such allegations except the brief facts, which are germane to decide the issue involved. 3. The petitioner has narrated the various facts and circumstances under which he has issued the cheque and reasons for approaching this Court seeking transfer. I do not propose to dwell upon all such allegations except the brief facts, which are germane to decide the issue involved. 3. The learned Senior Counsel contended that transfer is required on the following grounds: (a) Since the petitioner is the resident of Kerala and even for bona fide reasons whenever he is unable to appear before the Court and inspite of the fact that a petition is filed to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner, warrants are issued; (b) Certain correction is made with regard to the number of cheque in the Court records,which took place with the active connivance of the staff employed in the court of the learned Magistrate; (c) Even though certified copies of all the documents were called for, the learned Magistrate has not furnished the same immediately and as such the Court is prejudiced as against the petitioner/accused; (d) Since the Complainant is a very powerful person and a leading money lender in the Karur District, no conductive atmosphere is prevailing to conduct the case, more particularly on earlier occasion, the power agent of the complainant has visited even the Kerala State and threatened the lady members and the petitioner is facing a similar threat whenever he is visiting the Karur District to conduct the case; (e) The bona fide of the petitioner cannot be suspected, inasmuch as the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to the credit of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the complainant if the case is transferred to any other Court; (f) One one occasion, the power agent of the complainant with others attempted to assualt the Senior Counsel and abused him in an un-parliamentary language and the counsels were threatened not to attend the case in future, failing which they would face the consequences. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel, prayed for the transfer of the case. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended as follows; (a) It cannot be suggested that the learned Magistrate is prejudiced upon the petitioner for merely issuing warrants. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel, prayed for the transfer of the case. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended as follows; (a) It cannot be suggested that the learned Magistrate is prejudiced upon the petitioner for merely issuing warrants. In fact, on earlier three occasions, the learned Magistrate has issued only bailable warrants for the non appearance of the petitioner and all such warrants were later on recalled; (b) As regards the correction of the cheque is concerned, the Court cannot be found fault with, such corrections and assuming that the said allegation is true, it is always open to the petitioner to agitate the same in the trial; (c) As regards the non furnishing of copies of the documents is concerned, the petitioner sought for only four documents, out of which certified copies of three documents were furnished. For the remaining document, the petitioner has not raised any objection till date by approaching this Court as against the refusal: (d) As regards the alleged threat upon the petitioner is concerned, such allegations are purely made with a view to prejudice the Court in order to transfer the case and thereby the petitioner could gain further time by protracting the proceedings; (e) As regards the deposit made by the petitioner is concerned, it is not correct to state that the petitioner has voluntarily deposited the said amount or at the instance of the learned Magistrate, but however the deposit was made when the petitioner has approached the Kerala High Court on an earlier occasion seeking anticipatory bail and that cannot be cited as reason for transfer; (f) As regards the threat to the counsel is concerned, it is submitted that there is no merit in the said allegation and even otherwise nothing prevented the concerned counsel to approach the police seeking suitable action, if really there was a threat to the counsel; For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the transfer of the case. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for either side. 6. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for either side. 6. As far as the first contention is concerned, namely the issuance of warrants is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, such warrants are issued only as bailable warrants whenever the petitioner/accused was absent and that cannot be a ground for ordering transfer. Similarly, the other contentions, namely the correction in the cheque is concerned as well as non furnishing of copies are concerned, there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent and that cannot be a ground for ordering transfer. 7. As regards the contention urged relating to the deposit of Rs.510 lakhs is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in Bail Application No.5806 of 2004 and the High Court of Kerala by order, dated 5.10.2004 has passed an order directing the petitioner herein to deposit the said sum of Rs.50 lakhs. Even though an argument is advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that a demand draft was taken even before the Senior Counsel that a demand draft was taken even before the grant of order on 5.10.2004, no details are available as to when the said anticipatory bail application was filed and as to whether the same was adjourned enabling the petitioner to make a statement or to obtain a demand draft for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. In view of the fact that the order was passed on 5.10.2004, wherein a specific condition is imposed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50 lakhs either in cash or by demand draft, it has to be assumed that the said demand draft was obtained even prior to the date of the order, namely, in the course of hearing of the application for the grant of anticipatory bail, and as such the petitioner cannot take any advantage for the deposit he has made. 8. As regards the threat to the petitioner as well as the counsel is concerned, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Apex Court has held in number of decisions to the effect that the case shall not be transferred for the alleged threat posed to the petitioner/accused. 8. As regards the threat to the petitioner as well as the counsel is concerned, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Apex Court has held in number of decisions to the effect that the case shall not be transferred for the alleged threat posed to the petitioner/accused. In this connection, the learned counsel for the repondent placed reliance of the decision of the Apex Court, namely Abhiram Veer v. North Eastern Regional Agricultrual Marketing Corporation Ltd.,2001 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1491: A.I.R. 1983 S.C.292; Ranjit Singh and another v. Popat Rambhaji Sonamane and others and Menaka Sanjay Gandhi and another v. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 S.C.C. (Crl.) 934. Even though the Apex Court has held that transfer shall not be ordered for the alleged threat to the parties, in the very same decision namely Menaka Sanjay Gandhi case, the Apex Court has specifically observed that assurance of a fair trail is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when motion of transfer is made and the mere convenient of the party or easy availability of legal services or other minor issues shall not be considered. The Apex Court has made clear that something more substantial and compelling situation exist for ordering transfer. 9. In the light of the above principle, though this court is reluctant to order transfer merely on the allegation that the petitioner is facing threat, in the light of the other circumstances, namely threat to the counsel, the matter has to be examined without reference to any other allegation. It appears that on the date of hearing, namely, on 8.11.2004 there is an allegation that there was threat to the learned Senior counsel as well as the other counsel. Admittedly, a complaint was preferred on 8.11.2004 before the learned Magistrate about the incident that took place immediately after hearing of the case in the court. It appears that on the date of hearing, namely, on 8.11.2004 there is an allegation that there was threat to the learned Senior counsel as well as the other counsel. Admittedly, a complaint was preferred on 8.11.2004 before the learned Magistrate about the incident that took place immediately after hearing of the case in the court. The complaint proceeds to the effect that after arguments were over and when the case was passed over for orders, when the senior counsel came out of the court and proceeded to his car, which was parked near the court hall ‘within the premises’, the power agent of the complainant by name Vishnuram Saravanavel rushed along with two others and attempted to assault the senior counsel and abused him in an un-parliamentary language and further threat was made to him that in future he should not enter Karur. In the light of the allegation, the counsel on record has preferred a complaint indicating the threat made to the senior counsel, wherein the name of the senior counsel is also furnished. It cannot be lost sight of that the designated senior counsel, who appeared in the said case, would permit the counsel on record to refer his name in the complaint without any basis. When the name of the senior counsel of the High Court is specifically referred to in the said complaint, which also proceeds to the effect that the incident tool place ‘within the premises’ of the court, the learned, Magistrate has returned the said complaint in a causal manner with the following endorsement: "Since the occurrence is said to have taken place outside the court hall, the learned advocate is directed to lodge his complaint before the S.I. of Police, Karur Town Police Station." It is not known as to why the learned Magistrate has not initiated any prompt action by entertaining the said complaint. The learned Magistrate is vest with the power under Sec.190 Crl.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence, in the cognizance of the offence, in the light of the facts as set out in the complaint, which constituted an offence. The learned Magistrate is vest with the power under Sec.190 Crl.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence, in the cognizance of the offence, in the light of the facts as set out in the complaint, which constituted an offence. The learned Magistrate could have treated the said complaint as private complaint and proceeded with the matter or should have passed an order under Sec.156(3) of Crl.P.C. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offence only after the report is received from the police. In this connection, it is useful to refer a decision of the Apex Court reported in Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and others, (1997)8 S.C.C. 476 , which empowers the learned Magistrate to act on the basis of the complaint received by him in a stated circumstances. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is useful to refer about a decision of the Apex Court on the point of law. The Apex Court in its decision reported in Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, (1996)2 S.C.R. 678 held as follows: "A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of Justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. The Court has be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the Court may weigh the circumstances." In a decision reported in Abdul Nagar Nadani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000)6 S.C.C.204 the Apex Court has held as follows: "The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Sec.407 and anywhere in the country under Sec.406, Crl.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the State of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertain but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension." Similarly, the Apex Court in a decision reorted in Mrs.Menaka Sanjay Gandhi v. Ms.Rani Jethmalani, (1979)4 S.C.C.167 has referred as follows: "Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any Court or even at any place, the appropriate Court may transfer the case to another Court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conductive. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any Court or even at any place, the appropriate Court may transfer the case to another Court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conductive. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society." In the light of the above settled principles, a case can be transferred when there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done and the petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. The assurance of a fair trial is a paramount consideration for transferring the criminal case. Similarly, the purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. The above pronouncements are reiterated by the Apex Court in its decision reported in K.Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police and others, (2003)2 L.N.(Crl.) 929. In the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court referred to supra, by considering the fact that there was a serious threat even to the senior counsel, who appeared in a case on 8.11.2004 at Karur, I am inclined to order transfer. 11. In the circumstances stated above, the following directions are issued: (a) The Principal District Judge, Karur is directed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.817 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli who shall allot the case to any other competent court. 11. In the circumstances stated above, the following directions are issued: (a) The Principal District Judge, Karur is directed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.817 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and transfer the same to the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli who shall allot the case to any other competent court. The above exercise shall be completed by the learned District Judge within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order from this court by the learned District Judge, Karur and on receipt of the case bundle, the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli shall allot a case within one week. (b) On such allotment of case, the concerned Magistrate at Tiruchirapalli District shall complete the trial within a period of two months, to which necessary cooperation shall be extended by both parties. (c) Since the demand draft for Rs.50 lakhs which stands in the name of the respondent/complainant is due to expire, the learned Magistrate of Karur shall nominate an officer of the court to present the same to the account of the respondent/complainant in a bank wherein he is operating account and on realization of the said amount, the concerned bank shall credit the said amount to the credit of the transferred case on the file of the learned Magistrate on whose file the case is transferred in the Tiruchirapalli District and it should be kept in a fixed deposit for a minimum period of 30 or 45 days so as to interest would accrue on such deposit, subject to renewal. (d) If the case ends in favour of the complainant, immediately on the pronouncement of the judgment and after the expiry period of 30 days and before the expiry period of 45 days, the amount shall be disbursed to the complainant. If the complaint preferred by the respondent is dismissed, there shall be a similar direction, namely after the expiry period of 30 days and before the expiry period of 45 days, the accused/petitioner herein shall withdraw the said amount from the bank. This criminal O.P. is allowed in the above terms.