H.Sathak Ahmed Shaw vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 10863 Mad

                                                                           CRL.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 22.06.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                             CRL.O.P.No. 14381 of 2022
                                            and Crl.M.P.No. 7911 of 2022

                H.Sathak Ahmed Shaw                                                    .. Petitioner

                                                      Versus

                1.The Inspector of Police
                CCB, Chennai
                (Crime No.815/2006)

                2.N.Dhanraj Kochar
                3.Inderchand D.Kochar
                4.D.Suresh Kumar Kochar
                5.Ramesh Kumar Kochar
                6.Jitesh Kumar
                7.Rajkumari
                8.Anitha
                9.Sarala                                                           .. Respondents


                PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

                to transfer the case in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 from the file of the Principal

                District and Sessions Court at Chengalpattu to some other judge.

                For Petitioner          :   Mr.S.Doraiswamy
                For Respondents :           A.Gokulkrishnan for R1
                                            Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 5
                                                                            CRL.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

                                                        ORDER

This petition has been filed to transfer the appeal in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017

pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court at Chengalpattu

to some other judge.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as there are several

allegations made against by the petitioner which is not appropriate for the

Judge to dispose the appeal and apprehends that he will not a get proper

justice. At the outset, the allegations made by the petitioner and the other

aspects are wholly mischievous. Not stopping with that, the petitioner has

already filed a frivolous complaint against the Judicial Officer before the

Vigilance Cell of this Court making unsubstantiated allegations and one of the

allegations it appears to be made was that the judgment was already made

ready. Further, on proper investigation and verification by the Vigilance Cell,

the said allegations found to be false. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner

has also filed a writ petition for direction to the Vigilance Cell to complete the

investigation, which had also got dismissed. Not stopping with that, now

present application is filed with the very same allegations.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

3. The very conduct of the petitioner making such scurrilous allegations

itself is not in good taste and the counsel who drafted such allegations in the

petition is also not understood the value of the legal system. Making such

scurrilous allegation without verifying just because they have been engaged by

the parties itself amounts to professional misconduct. The conduct of the

petitioner and the counsel appearing for the petitioners is highly deprecated

and is not in tune with the ethics followed in this legal system from the time of

its inception.

4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that this Court having found all

the allegations are false, would have dismissed the petition with severe costs.

However, as they have made allegations and failed in their attempt to protect

the proceeding, this Court is of the view again dismissing the application will

lead to further embarrassment to the learned Principal District Judge alone. To

avoid such embarrassment, Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 is transferred to Additional

District Judge, Chengalpattu.

5. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is directed to

transfer Appeal case immediately to the Additional District Judge,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

Chengalpattu on receipt of this order. After receipt of case bundle, learned

Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, shall dispose of the appeal within a

period of one month without any further delay and it is also made clear that

petition for stay or any adjournments by the petitioner shall not be entertained

by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, and the petitioner having

dragged the appeal for a maximum extent have no right to file any petition in

the form of any documents or evidence etc.

6. With the above observations, this petition is ordered accordingly. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.06.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order dhk

To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Court Chengalpattu

2.The Inspector of Police CCB, Chennai.(Crime No.815/2006)

3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk

Crl.O.P.No.14381 of 2022

22.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis