The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to withdraw and transfer the complaint of the respondent pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, at Ponneri in C.C.No.93 of 2006 to any other Court in Chennai, competent to try the same.
2. The respondent/complainant's case is that he has filed the complaint under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ingredients of the complaint is that the accused received money earlier from the complainant for which the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 734483 dated 30.04.2005 for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, drawn on Union Bank of India, Triblicane branch. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his bankers namely HDFC Bank Ltd, Nungambakkam branch, Chennai 34. The said cheque was returned for the reason "insufficient funds in the account", as per memorandum dated 20.10.2005. After that, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.02.2006 to the accused. The said registered notice was returned to the complainant. As such the accused committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After that the complainant approached the learned Judicial Magistrate -I , Ponneri and filed the above said complaint. Along with the said complaint, five documents have been filed and three witnesses have been mentioned.
3. The learned Magistrate after applying his mind has taken the case on his file as C.C.No.93 of 2006 and issued summons to the petitioner/accused herein.
4. Now, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Ponneri to any other Magistrate in Chennai, for the following reasons.
a) The petitioner alleges that he entered into a sale transaction of the property at New No.163 (Old No.436), Mint street, George Town, Chennai, that the total sale consideration of the transaction was Rs.15,00,000/- and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards advance and issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- as security towards balance sale consideration, to the respondent herein. One M.R.Elangovan mediated the said transaction and also stood witness to the agreement of sale and the memorandum of understanding executed between the petitioner and the respondent of the said property. The said M.R.Elangovan also received a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- from the petitioner on various pretext of payments to the tenants in the property for vacating their respective tenancy premises.
b) It is further alleged that the said M.R.Elangovan approached the petitioner in the month of April 2005 representing that the cheque issued by him to the respondent has been lost and requested him to draw a fresh cheque for the same amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and assured him that the transaction of sale would be completed before the month end of April 2005. After obtaining the fresh cheque, in No.734483 from the petitioner, through misleading representation the said M.R.Elangovan tackled to bring about the completion of the sale transaction as promised. The petitioner has further alleged that only on receipt of summons from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate -I at Ponneri, the Petitioner has come to know that the said M.R.Elangovan has issued the cheque through the respondent , who is his close relative, through his second wife.
c) The petitioner submits that the subject matter i.e., cheque was handed over by him to M.R.Elangovan in lieu of the allegedly lost cheque and the honouring of the said cheque was interlinked with the sale transaction of the property situated at New No.163 (Old No.436) Mint street, George Town, Chennai, which is yet to be materialised. The petitioner has alleged that it is only for the purpose of unlawfully extorting money through coercive means that the above respondent, in complicity with the said M.R.Elangovan misused the cheque.
d) Further, the petitioner alleges that all the said bank transactions took place in Chennai within the territorial Jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai. Further the petitioner has alleged that the cheque was presented by the complainant to his bankers on 20.10.2005 and was returned on 26.10.2005, but the legal notice has been alleged to have been sent on 14.02.2006. The petitioner states that the alleged statutory notice has been issued by the respondent, through an advocate in ponneri, with a premeditated intention of filing the complaint in the Magistrate Court at Ponneri, only for the purpose of harassment and applying coerciveness and pressure on him to unlawfully enrich himself.
e) The petitioner states that he submitted himself to the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I at ponneri and continue to appear before the said Court.
5. The petitioner therefore contends that the complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I at Ponneri is liable to be transferred to a Court of competent and proper Jurisdiction in Chennai on account of lack of territorial Jurisdiction as provided under the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has cited the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in 1994(4) crimes 212 SC. The petitioner has also cited bad health of the petitioner and his wife as also another ground for the transfer of the case to Chennai. The petitioner has further contended that the averred statutory notice was sent from the post office situated within the High Court building at Chennai and not sent from Jurisdiction of Court of Judicial Magistrate -I at ponneri.
6. Considering the ingredients of the complaint and the contentions of the petitioner and arguments of the learned counsels for their respective parties, and the citations given by the learned counsel for the petitioner in (1) an unreported Judgment of Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.2021 of 2008, in M/s.Harman Electronics (P) Ltd ..vs.. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd, and (2) another Judgment reported in AIR 1999, Supreme Court 3762 in K.Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan the Court opines that as the petitioner has raised the question of original Jurisdiction and also pointed out irregularities in the said cheque presentation, dishonour and the alleged statutory notice, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to present these points at the trial Court for earliest disposal in the interest of both parties. Further, the case has also been pending for about three years. Hence the court directs the Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri to dispose the case within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. With the above direction, Criminal Original Petition No.18942 of 2007 is disposed of. Consequently conected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
skn/mra To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104