Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. The entire contents of the petition and affidavit clearlydiscloses that the petitioner is facing eight cheque dishonour casesand five criminal cases which are all pending various Courts andvarious Police Stations. As per the petitioner's statement, all thecheque cases arose on a single transaction and…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.23680 of 2007and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 20071. P.Murugesan2. Rajendran.. PetitionersVersusState by Inspector of Police, Gangavalli Police Station, Salem District, Crime No. 74 of 2006... Respondent Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to withdraw the S.C.No.78 of 2007 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Subordinate Court at Attur and transfer the same to any Court at Namakkal District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
O R D E RThe above Criminal O.P.No.23680 of 2007 has been filed by the Petitioner to transfer the case in SC No.78 of 2007 pending on thefile of the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Subordinate Court at Atthurto any Court at Namakkal district.
The Petitioner/accused-1 has filed an affidavit in supportof the transfer petition stating that he has a sago factory and thathe has purchased tapioca from the farmers and converted it intostarch and sold it in the open market at Salem. In the year 2001,one M.R. Sundaram approached him and made an agreement thatthe said M.R. Sundaram will provide Tapioca to the petitionersfactory and that the petitioner will convert the same to starch forwhich the said M.R.Sundaram should provide grinding charge to thepetitioner. Further, in the course of business, the said M.R.Sundaram demanded 10 blank cheques as security. Trusting him, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had given 10 blank cheques as security to continue thebusiness. In the course of said business, a dispute arose betweenthem. Hence, the petitioner filed a private complaint in CC No.1547of 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate I, Athur.
The petitioner further submitted that the said M.R.Sundarampresented 3 cheques in his name, and 7 cheques were presented in thename of his relatives and subordinates. Besides, on the instructionof the said Sundaram, 5 police cases were registered on thepetitioner herein on various crime numbers in various districts onthe complaint of relatives and friends of the said M.R.Sundaram. Outof 5 criminal cases, one criminal case is pending before the Gangavalli police station in Crime No.74 of 2006. Charge sheet wasalso filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Athur in P.R.CNo.1 of 2007 and the same was transferred after committal proceedingsto the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Sub-Judge, Athur and the same ispending as SC No.78 of 2007.
The Petitioner further submitted that he has furnishedparticulars regarding 8 cheque dishonour cases which are pending onthe files of various Courts. Further, the petitioner has furnishedparticulars of 5 criminal cases which are pending at various policestations. Further, the petitioner has alleged that the saidM.R.Sundaram was a member of assembly and used his political powerand registered criminal cases against him.
The petitioner has further submitted that he has filedtransfer petitions in all the cheque dishonour cases to the JudicialMagistrate Court, Rasipuram. Further he has filed 5 CriminalOriginal Petitions to investigate the criminal cases by some otherinvestigating agency. Now, one of the criminal cases registered bythe respondent police, is pending on the file of respondent police at Assistant Sessions Judge cum Sub-Judge, Athur in SC No.78 of 2007.It is alleged that the said M.R. Sundaram is a member of StateAssembly and hence the police and advocates are fully cooperatingwith him. It is alleged that the said M.R. Sundaram is continuouslydisturbing the petitioner and his family members by way of foistingfalse complaints against him. The petitioner further submitted thathis life is in danger in the hands of the respondent police and thesaid M.R. Sundaram. Hence the petitioner has sent representation tothe higher authorities and human rights commission. Supporting hiscase, the petitioner has filed 5 F.I.R copies.
The respondent police has filed Counter statement anddenied the petitioner's claim. The respondent police is not aware ofthe business transaction between the petitioner and one M.R.Sundaram. Regarding the transfer of the case from Athur to Namakkal, as thedistance between the places is about 80 kms, it is highly impossibleand risky to take the witnesses from Athur to Namakkal. Fortransferring the case, the reason is not valid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counselfor the State advanced their arguments for their respective parties.
Operative part
The entire contents of the petition and affidavit clearlydiscloses that the petitioner is facing eight cheque dishonour casesand five criminal cases which are all pending various Courts andvarious Police Stations. As per the petitioner's statement, all thecheque cases arose on a single transaction and 5 criminal cases arealso pending at various courts. This happened due to enmity betweenthe petitioner and the said M.R.Sundaram as alleged by thepetitioner. Anyhow, the petitioner has come forward to face thecases. A person cannot appear before several Courts because hisnormal daily life will be affected. Hence, he is seeking transfer ofonly one case ie., in SC.No.78 of 2007, pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge cum Subordinate Court at Athur to any otherCourt at Namakkal District. So, this Court decides to transfer thecase in SC No.78 of 2007 to the Principal Subordinate Court, Namakkal. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.mraSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Principal Sub Court, Namakkal. 2. The Asst Sessions Judge cum Sub Court, Attur. 3. The Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 4. The Inspector of Police, Gangavalli Police Station, Salem District5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasLA(CO)SR/2.11.2009Crl.O.P.No.23680 of 2007 and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 407.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.