IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl. O.P.No.27058 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Mr.M.Karunanidhi ... Petitioner vs. Mr.N.Ramachandran ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to withdraw and transfer the criminal complaint in C.C.No.171 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court Ariyalur to any of the competent Court outside the Jurisdiction of Ariyalur District in the interest of Justice. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Nithianandam For Respondent : Mr.P.Valliyappan O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to transfer the complaint in C.C.No.171 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ariyalur to any other Court outside the Jurisdiction of Ariyalur District in the interest of Justice.
2. Heard Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Valliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner implicated as an accused in criminal complaint given by the respondent, who is a practicing Advocate in Ariyalur and the said complaint was taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur in C.C.No.171 of 2009 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending. He would also submit that the petitioner as an accused had raised various defence in the case and he has got good chances of success in the said case, if his defence have been permitted to be placed before the Court. He would also submit in his argument that the respondent / complainant being a practicing Advocate in the same Court openly challenged the petitioner that he would drag him before the Criminal Court throughout his lifetime and he would give immense hardship to him. He would further submit that the respondent being a practicing lawyer of the said Bar in which the case has been filed against the petitioner, the petitioner felt much difficulty in defending the case through counsel emerging from the same Bar. He would also submit that the petitioner had also given a complaint against the respondent before the Bar Council of the Tamil Nadu and the said complaint was registered as 118 of 2009 and the said complaint is pending, after the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu issued a notice to the respondent. He would further submit that facts being, the respondent does not end with the threatening the the dragging of the petitioner to the Court, but he again threatened the petitioner that he would put in Jail by getting conviction against him. He would further submit that the petitioner further apprehended to conduct the case before the said Court where the respondent is practicing as a lawyer. He would therefore request the Court that the case may be transferred to nearest Court in order to assure fair trial and dispensation of real justice. He would further submit that he would ready to appear before the said Court by engaging lawyer from the said Bar to conduct the case. Therefore, he would request the Court to transfer the case in C.C.No.171 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur to any one of the Judicial Magistrate Courts situated very near to Ariyalur and to direct expeditious disposal and render justice.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that reasons stated by the petitioner is not sufficient to order a transfer of the case from the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur by dislocating the Jurisdiction of the said Court. He would further submit that the respondent is a practicing Advocate in Civil side and there is no question of any influencing the case by virtue of his status before the said Court. He would further submit that the petitioner has received money from the respondent and issue a cheque, which was dishonoured and therefore, the respondent was constrained to give a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no enmity for initiating such proceedings. He would further submit that the transfer of the case from the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur to any other Court would certainly give much prejudice and hardship not only to the respondent but also to the petitioner. The reasons stated by the petitioner is not sufficient for ordering the transfer of the case. He would further submit that the respondent never threatened the petitioner that he would be dragging him to Court in order to put him in Jail by getting a conviction. He would also submit that the complaint given before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is a false one and the respondent is defending the same. He would further submit that the respondent has got decent and respectable practice and he never indulged to dismay, misdeed or misbehavior. He would further submit that the petitioner had filed the present petition in order to drag the respondent from Ariyalur Court to any other Court for conducting the Trial. Therefore, he would request the Court that there is no necessity for transfer of the case in C.C.No.171 of 2009 from the file of learned Judicial Magistrate to any other Court. He would therefore request the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side.
6. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint given by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The contents of the application and the defence raised by the parties need not be gone into this proceedings since it is only a petition for transfer of the case. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a practicing Advocate at Ariyalur Bar where his case in C.C.No.171 of 2009 has been filed against him and it is pending. The apprehension of the petitioner would be that he being an Advocate of the said Court, the respondent had threatened him that the petitioner is dragging the case needlessly and that he would see that the case against the petitioner end in conviction. Further, the said allegation has been denied by the respondent by stating that he has got decent and respectable practice in Civil side. No doubt it is true that on the date of Trial if any fixed by the said Court, the respondent as the complainant has to enter into the box for adducing evidence in support of his case. The petitioner, who is a lawyer from the same Bar to question the respondent in cross examination and the Advocate, who was engaged by the petitioner may be a true and efficient lawyer, but apprehension in the mind of the petitioner was that the petitioner might have been deceived by showing any concession to the respondent. Moreover, the respondent is stated to have threatened the petitioner as already detailed above. This instance regarding the threatening of the petitioner by the respondent need not be gone into on merits for the transfer of the case from the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. The parties must be kept their mind free to undergo a fair and free trial in accordance with law and any apprehension in the mind of the parties may make the petitioner or the respondent to suspect everything which can be in a position to see everything in a coloured glass. The said circumstance should have been avoided while giving relief to the parties and the relief ought to have seen given judiciously. For the said purpose, it is necessary to transfer the case in C.C.No.171 of 2009 from the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur for disposal in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.171 of 2009 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur is ordered to be transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Perambalur for continuing trial and to dispose the case in accordance with law on merits. The transferor Court namely Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur is directed to duly index the case records within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to dispatch those records within the said period as stated above. On receipt of the said records from the transferor Court, the transferee Court is directed to take the case on its file within a period of one week from the date of such receipt of records and to complete the formalities in issuing notice to proceed with the trial of the case and to dispose the same within a period of two months thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ogy
To
The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ariyalur