Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

R. Lalithambal vs J. Stanly Jones

Madras High Court|07 August, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to withdraw the case in C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and to transfer the same to any of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Chennai.
2. The respondent/complainant's case is that he has filed the C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, against the petitioner/accused herein for an alleged offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused is an organising member for Chits in Shriram Chit Funds for the past several years. The accused has organised her friends and relatives of the Chit Shriram Chit Funds, Tamil Nadu. The complaint also had become a member in the Chit, through the accused persons. On 10.03.2001, at the 23rd auction, the complainant bidden the Chit for Rs.80,000/- and the same was accepted by the company. The complainant was in Virudhunagar and the accused was in Chennai. Further, they are related as in-laws. On request of the accused, the complainant signed some blank papers and sent it to her. It is alleged by the complainant that the same was conveniently filled up by the accused person stating that the company can adjust the dues payable to the company from the complainant's account.
3. The complainant finally obtained a cheque from the accused for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his bankers, namely, Indian Bank, Virudhunagar Branch. The said cheque was returned on 07.06.2003. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice and approached the Honourable Court by way of the above complaint. Along with the complaint, seven documents were filed and three witnesses have been mentioned.
4. Now, the petitioner/accused has sought for transfer of the above case in C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, for the below mentioned reasons. It is alleged that the petitioner married one Thomas Jayaprabhakar, who is the brother of the respondent herein. The petitioner and her husband lived as husband and wife for some time; thereafter due to difference of opinion, they got separated. In this situation, the petitioner's husband had taken away all her signed blank cheques from the house and one of the cheque leaf was misused by the respondent on the instigation of the petitioner's husband. On the misused cheque, the complaint has been filed. The petitioner has further alleged that she has been prevented by the respondent's rowdy elements from appearing before the Court. Hence, the learned Magistrate has issued a non-bailable warrant. The same was recalled by the Court. Due to the harassment of the respondent, she could not attend the Court. She has no mother, and her father is aged about 87 years. Further the petitioner has alleged that she has no male help to attend the Court.
5. Further, the petitioner has stated that she is an employee in a bank and as such she could not attend the Court. Further, the petitioner has alleged that the said cheque was taken away by the petitioner's husband from Chennai. So, the jurisdiction comes under Chennai Court.
6. Considering the contentions of the petitioner and respondent of their cases and after hearing the Learned Counsel, the Court is of the view that just because of dispute between the petitioner, the respondent and petitioner's husband, the case cannot be transferred. The petitioner has alleged that the cheque has been taken, by her husband, from Chennai. Hence she has contended that the Jurisdiction comes under Chennai. This is a frivolous allegation and hence it cannot be entertained. Further, the Jurisdiction Magistrate is the competent person to try the case. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mps/mra To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R. Lalithambal vs J. Stanly Jones

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 August, 2009