ORDER : As the parties in all these matters, are common, they can be disposed of by a common order. 2. Parties are referred to as father, mother, daughter and son. All these cases arise out of a family dispute between parents and a daughter on the one hand and the son on the other. Much wrong doing is alleged by each side against the other. It is the contention of the son that his parents are mere pawns at the hands of his sister, their daughter, who is the prime driver of the dispute. 3. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15208 of 2012, daughter seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.1076 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. 4. Father, mother, daughter and son jointly were doing real estate business under the name and style of 'ARK Real Estates'. Out of profit derived there from, they purchased movable and immovable properties as also held bank deposits. Having issued a cheque for Rs.2 crores drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to the son towards his share, the father instructed 'stop payment' as also sold some of the properties behind the son's back. Alleging that father, mother and daughter had cheated him, the son preferred a complaint. A case was registered in Crime No.611 of 2012 on the file of first respondent for offences u/s.120(B), 403, 406, 420, 423, 424 and 477 IPC. Seeking quash of such complaint Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3494 of 2013 has been filed. 5. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15979 of 2013, the case of the prosecution is that owing to dispute over family property, the daughter through her henchmen, threatened the son as also issued threats to his life. On the complaint of the son, case in Crime No.1076 of 2012 on the file of first respondent was registered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet stands filed informing commission of offences u/s.120(b) and 506(ii) IPC. The case has been taken on file in C.C.No.363 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil. Seeking quash of such case, the petition has been filed. 6. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16748 of 2013, daughter seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2013 on the file of first respondent. Daughter has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18111 of 2014 seeking relief of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 148 of 2013 on the file of the respondent. 7. Seeking quash of such case, the petition has been filed. 6. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16748 of 2013, daughter seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2013 on the file of first respondent. Daughter has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18111 of 2014 seeking relief of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 148 of 2013 on the file of the respondent. 7. The son, an Advocate, preferred a complaint informing of an attack on him and his junior by henchmen owing to dispute over family property and of having suffered severe injury. A case in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences u/s.447, 294(b), 324, 307 and 120(b) IPC, was registered. Seeking quash of such complaint, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11731 of 2014 has been filed. 8. Daughter has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20649 of 2014 seeking transfer of C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, on the ground that the son as a practicing advocate at Kanyakumari District, would delay the trial in the case. 9. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21387 of 2014, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.04.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., upon the instigation of the daughter, A1 waylaid the son and threatened him requiring him to transfer his properties in favour of the daughter informing that otherwise he would be done away with. On complaint of the son, a case was registered in Crime No.148 of 2013 on the file of first respondent police. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s.341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and 109 IPC, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Seeking quash of such case, the petition has been filed. 10. W.P.(MD)No.6774 of 2011 has been filed by the mother seeking a direction to first respondent to protect her and her husband's life and property. 11. W.P.(MD)No.3734 of 2012 has been filed by the father seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to protect his wife's and his life. 12. In W.P.(MD)No.2913 of 2012, the father seeks transfer of investigation in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file of Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 13. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for State and learned counsel for respondents. 14. 12. In W.P.(MD)No.2913 of 2012, the father seeks transfer of investigation in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file of Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 13. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for State and learned counsel for respondents. 14. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that the father and mother have been driven to the need of seeking police protection through independent writ petitions. The father had moved W.P.No. 8178 of 2011 seeking protection for his life and property and that he be enabled to live a dignified and secured life in keeping with Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. This Court had disposed of such petition on 11.08.2011 and recorded thus: “8. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.Anitter Alwin/fourth respondent, who is present in Court state that all the issues between the fourth respondent/son and the petitioner/father has been resolved amicably. The fourth respondent assured this Court that there will be no untoward incident, as it happened in the past and the fourth respondent will treat the petitioner/father with due respect and dignity and also take care of his mother.” Daughter had moved H.C.P.(MD)No.480 of 2011 praying that the father be produced from the illegal custody of the son, his wife and one other sister. Father had preferred one other complaint on 09.11.2011 and moved Crl.O.P. (MD).No.15942 of 2011 seeking a direction for registration of case and investigation. This Court had disposed of such petition on 14.12.2011. Therein, this Court at paragraph No.7 directed as follows: '7. So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is yet to seek remedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned before approaching this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the petitioner to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate concerned if necessary, after the formalities before police, ended against the petitioner. On such finding of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only, the petitioner has to approach this Court, if necessary, only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. On such finding of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate concerned may either refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter only, the petitioner has to approach this Court, if necessary, only after exhausting all the process of law as contemplated. But, in the present case, the petitioner had approached this Court, without following the procedures mentioned therein and therefore, this Court has no other option to dispose the petition with the aforesaid observations.' Counter filed by third respondent in W.P.No.6774 of 2011, in January 2012, would indicate that the parents were living at the family house at Nagercoil before being evicted therefrom. Thereafter, a complaint had been preferred by the father with the Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District on 23.03.2012. Crime No.611 of 2012 on the file of first respondent had been registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the son on 31.12.2012. Referring to the First Information Report in Crime No.611 of 2012, learned counsel submitted that the same only disclosed violation of a contract. The son had moved a civil action in O.S.No.79 of 2013 on the file of District Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The Principal Bench of this Court had stayed proceedings therein under orders in Tr.C.M.P.No.504 of 2013 moved by the mother. In passing orders in W.P.(MD)No.8178 of 2011 on 11.08.2011, this Court took note of the position that all disputes between the father and son amicably stood resolved. Learned counsel submitted that the son is a member of the Bar at Nagercoil and therefore, the chances of fair trial in C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, are remote. 15. Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the son, referred to a photograph towards informing that the son brutally had been attacked at the instance of henchmen engaged by the daughter. W.P.(MD)No.8178 of 2011 had been moved in July 2011. Therein the father sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to protect his life and property. The report of the Superintendent of Police dated 01.08.2011 informed of an attempt to throw out the son from the family house at Nagercoil. Caught in a lie, the father had made a statement before this Court on 10.08.2011 that the matter may be settled. A cheque in a sum of Rs.2 crores was agreed to be paid to the son. Caught in a lie, the father had made a statement before this Court on 10.08.2011 that the matter may be settled. A cheque in a sum of Rs.2 crores was agreed to be paid to the son. The father issued cheque bearing No.149848 post dated 25.01.2012 drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank in favour of the son. However, he had instructed stop payment thereon on 05.01.2012 and thereafter, there had been an attack on the son while he was at his office on 13.01.2012. The son suffered severe injuries and his junior also was injured. Upon the complaint of the son, the case in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, for offences u/s.447, 294(b), 324, 307 and 120-B IPC, has been registered. Father filed W.P.(MD) No.2913 of 2012 seeking transfer of such case. An affidavit dated 17.01.2012 was filed in Court on 24.01.2012 and an order of interim stay in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD) No.2913 of 2012 against filing of final report in Crime No.70 of 2012 was passed on 09.03.2012. Thereafter, the father preferred a complaint on 23.03.2012 against the son alleging that the son threatened to do away with him and his wife. Learned counsel submitted that parents/father and mother are mere puppets at the hands of the sister. It was her avarice that was the reason for the entire dispute. W.P. (MD) No.8178 of 2011, wherein the father sought protection, had been disposed of on 11.08.2011 observing that the family dispute stood resolved. In W.P.(MD)No.6774 of 2011, the mother had sought similar relief. The same had not been disposed of since on the same day viz., 11.08.2011, the matter was posted before another learned Judge, who directed the registry to list the matter before the learned Judge concerned. Therefore, such writ petition did not survive consideration. The report of the Superintendent of Police dated 01.08.2011 filed in W.P.(MD)No.8178 of 2011 informed that the son was living at the house at Nagercoil. Father, mother and sister faced police action. To avoid the same, they had left. W.P.(MD) No.3734 of 2012 seeking police protection would have to await the outcome of the investigation in the case levelled by the son. Father, mother and sister faced police action. To avoid the same, they had left. W.P.(MD) No.3734 of 2012 seeking police protection would have to await the outcome of the investigation in the case levelled by the son. Pursuant to investigation in Crime Nos.1076 of 2012 and 148 of 2013 charge sheets stand filed and cases have been taken on file in C.C.No.363 of 2012 and C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistriate II, Kanykumari District, Nagercoil. Father and mother are not accused in such cases. Therein, the sister and others are accused. The case in Crime No.611 of 2012 is pending investigation. Therein, offences under 120-B, 403, 406, 420, 423, 424 and 477 IPC had been levelled against father, mother and daughter. The civil case referred to by learned counsel for petitioner was in respect of a sum of Rs.40 crores, whereas the family held properties which was worth very much more and offences stood committed in respect thereof. Learned counsel submitted that a non-bailable warrant stood issued against the father by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Nagercoil, in a case arising from Crime No.17 of 2007 on the file of District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, in C.C.No.177 of 2009 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Nagercoil. 16. In response, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that the very complaint of the son registered in Crime No.70 of 2012, quash of which is sought in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11731 of 2014, admitted a position that the son had been sent out of the family home. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others [ 2013 (5) SCC 762 ], where jurisdiction of the superior courts to direct further investigation as also re-investigation stand recognized. In support of the petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20649 of 2014 and W.P.(MD) No. 2913 of 2012, seeking transfer of C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. Paragraph No.22 thereof reads as follows: “22. Paragraph No.22 thereof reads as follows: “22. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the following observations made by this Court in Gurucharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1418 : “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 further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge 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 entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.” In K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 767 , it was held as under: “Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done it should be seemed to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner.” The principle laid down in these cases is more or less the same. If there is reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice may not be done, he may seek transfer of the case. If there is reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice may not be done, he may seek transfer of the case. The apprehension entertained by the party must be a reasonable one and the case cannot be transferred on a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done.” 17. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 18. The relief sought for by petitioners are (a) quash of proceedings in Crime Nos.611 of 2012 and 70 of 2012; (b) quash of proceedings in Crime Nos.1076 of 2012 and 148 of 2013 wherein (c) transfer of investigation in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file Kottar Police charge sheet stands filed; Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to the file of a particular police officer viz., the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu, Madurai District. (d) quash of proceedings in C.C.No.363 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. (e) transfer of C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District or any other competent Court outside Kanyakumari District. (f) Police Protection; (g) anticipatory bail. 19. All the petitions as also the submissions of learned counsel on either side would inform that there is much bad blood between the family members. It cannot be disputed that on a bare reading, the First Information Reports, quash of which is sought, make out cognizable offences. What, if any, are the offences which do stand committed is a matter for the investigating agency to inform in its final report. The investigation in Crime Nos.1076 of 2012 and 148 of 2013 has led to the filing of charge sheets resulting in pendency of C.C.No. 363 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, respectively. Except for an attempt to portray the cases as false ones arising on account of the son on the one hand and father, mother and a daughter, on the other, being inimically disposed towards each other, this Court has not been addressed on the demerits of the prosecution case. Except for an attempt to portray the cases as false ones arising on account of the son on the one hand and father, mother and a daughter, on the other, being inimically disposed towards each other, this Court has not been addressed on the demerits of the prosecution case. Not even, the 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses have been placed before this Court for consideration on whether the final reports receive substantiation therefrom. Charge sheets inform commission of offences and petitioners/accused would have to face trial. 20. Even the father and mother, who seek police protection for their lives and property, are accused of much wrong doing. This Court does not see any imminent danger to their lives or property as would entitle them to an order of protection. 21. Given the nature of accusations and the close relationship of the parties, this Court is of the view that the investigation in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file Kottar Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, may be transferred not to the file of the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu, Madurai District, as prayed for, as the accused cannot choose the investigating agency but to the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 22. The conduct of trial in a Court where the de facto complainant is a practicing advocate could lead to a trying situation, which can well be avoided. On such consideration, the case in C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, shall be transferred to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli. 23. In the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the daughter. In the result, ? The cases in Crime Nos.1076 of 2012 and 148 of 2013, quash of which has been sought, have resulted in filing of charge sheets. Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15208 of 2012 and 16748 of 2013 are dismissed as infructuous. ? Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15979 of 2013, 11731 of 2014 and 21387 of 2014 and W.P. (MD) Nos.6774 of 2011 and 3734 of 2012 are dismissed. ? The case in C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, shall stand transferred to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20649 of 2014 is disposed of with the above direction. ? ? The case in C.C.No.216 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, shall stand transferred to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20649 of 2014 is disposed of with the above direction. ? The investigation in Crime No.70 of 2012 on the file of Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, shall stand transferred to the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. So also the case in Crime No.611 of 2012 on the file of Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, shall stand transferred to file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. W.P.(MD)No.2913 of 2012 and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3494 of 2013 are disposed of with the above direction. ? Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18111 of 2014 is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned on her executing a bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest her. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.