Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 843 (KER)

Annamma George, D/o. George v. State Of Kerala

2022-10-06

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner who is the accused in Crime Nos.1002/2019 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, 39/2020 of Kodakara Police Station, 3/2020 of Mala Police Station, 34/2020 of Marangattuppalli Police Station and 724/2019 of Vellikulangara Police Station has approached this Court seeking transfer of all the said proceedings to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. All the said cases are registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner collected various amounts from the respective defacto complainants and other witnesses in the said cases, promising to arrange jobs in a company in Canada and thereafter, she did not provide Visa. The amounts collected were also not returned. On the basis of the complaints submitted by respective defacto complainants and witnesses, several crimes were registered against the petitioner in various police stations in different districts. 3. Now, the petitioner wants to get all the said proceedings transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha and to be tried in the said Court. One of the reasons highlighted by the petitioner is that, on 14/06/2022, she was assaulted by some persons, while the petitioner was going from Thodupuzha to Kattapana for attending the court proceedings at Kattapana. In connection with the same, Annexure A4 FIR was registered by Thodupuzha Police. Therefore, it is contended that all the cases are to be transferred. 4. Heard Sri.B.Surjith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the said cases and Sri. C.S Hrithwik, Sri. M.P Prashanth and Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutors appearing for the State. 5. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the petitioner is a lady she is facing difficulties in appearing in the Courts which are situated at different districts. The learned counsel also places reliance upon Annexure-A4 FIR registered to point out that there are concerns of safety as against the petitioner. The learned counsel also brought my attention to Annexure-A3 letter issued by the Indian Embassy at Doha addressed to the Director General of Police, Kerala, to initiate proceedings against M/s. Shree Maruthy Courier, Pullepady Road, AK Tower, Ernakulam and one Mr.Vikas in respect of certain complaints received by the Embassy. The learned counsel also brought my attention to Annexure-A3 letter issued by the Indian Embassy at Doha addressed to the Director General of Police, Kerala, to initiate proceedings against M/s. Shree Maruthy Courier, Pullepady Road, AK Tower, Ernakulam and one Mr.Vikas in respect of certain complaints received by the Embassy. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the complaint based on which the aforesaid communication was issued, was submitted by the petitioner and some other aggrieved persons. Therefore, it was contended that, the petitioner herself is a victim and not a culprit as alleged by the police. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutors, appearing in the said cases, strongly oppose the aforesaid prayer. It is pointed out that, if the prayer is allowed, serious prejudice will be caused to the police and the affected parties as all of them are from various parts of State and the crimes were registered on the basis of complaints submitted by them in the respective police stations. 7. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions of either side. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is regarding the difficulties which the petitioner has to face in appearing before various courts for contesting the matter. Some safety concerns were also raised by placing reliance upon Annexure A4 FIR. However, after considering all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that while considering an application for transfer, the convenience of the accused alone cannot be a criteria for the same. In this case, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in almost all the cases, there are more than one victims. In case, all these cases are transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, it would cause serious prejudice to them, as they will have to travel all the way to Thodupuzha from other districts. 8. Besides the inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the victims, such a transfer may not be convenient for the police officers of the respective police stations, where crimes were registered. It may cause difficulties for such police officers to give proper assistance to the learned Public Prosecutor in contesting the cases. 8. Besides the inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the victims, such a transfer may not be convenient for the police officers of the respective police stations, where crimes were registered. It may cause difficulties for such police officers to give proper assistance to the learned Public Prosecutor in contesting the cases. Therefore, I am of the view that, the convenience of the accused, cannot outweigh the convenience of the victims as well as the police officers who are to handle the cases in this regard. 9. With regard to the safety concerns raised by the petitioner also, I am of the view that, such concerns by itself cannot be a reason to allow the transfer as sought for by the petitioner. The incident referred to by the petitioner in an isolated one and there are no materials to show that the said incident has any connection with the cases registered against her. Moreover, despite the fact that the incident occurred while she was travelling from Thodupuzha to Kattappana, the transfer is sought to Thodupuzha and therefore, I do not find any reason to rely upon Annexure A4 FIR as a ground for considering the transfer as sought for by the petitioner. In such circumstances, after considering all the materials placed before me, I am of the view that, these transfer petitions are liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek for exemption from personal appearance, before the courts concerned and if any such application is preferred, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law.