Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2926 (MAD)

Murali Krishna Prop. v. Vijaya kumar prop.

2009-08-04

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment 1. Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to transfer the case in C.C.No.3192 of 2005 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai to Small Causes Court, Chennai. The petitioner has filed the above criminal Original Petition to transfer the case in C.C.No.3192 of 2005 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai to Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The ingredients of the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant is that the petitioner/accused had borrowed hand loan for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 012. 2004 for which the petitioner executed documents in favour of the respondent herein. The respondent demanded the loan amount from the petitioner. The petitioner then issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.764158 dated 24.01.2005 in favour of the respondent herein and the cheque was drawn on the State Bank of India, Madanapalli, Andhrapradesh. The respondent presented the cheque, through his bankers, nemely, Indian Bank, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79, for collection on 21. 2005. The same was returned as unpaid due to "insufficient funds" in his bank account. Subsequently, the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioner on 18.02.2005 by registered post. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 22.02.2005. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner had neither paid the cheque amount nor had sent a reply. Thereafter the respondent filed the complaint before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Court, Chennai. Supporting his complaint, 5 documents have been filed and 3 witnesses have been mentioned. 3. The said case has been taken on file by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at, Chennai. 4. Now, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition for transfer of the said case. The petitioner submits that he is in no way connected with the said offence. The petitioner was falsely, intentionally and motivatedly implicated in this complaint. Further the petitioner requested the Court for time to cross examine the witness P.W-1. The Court refused to grant time. Further, the court has given priority to dispose of this case quickly as compared to other cases. Further, the learned Magistrate refused to grant time for cross examination of P.W.1 and closed the evidence of P.W1. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the petition to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and the Petition was allowed. Moreover, some cases of the petitioner and respondent have been transferred to Small Causes Court. Further, the learned Magistrate refused to grant time for cross examination of P.W.1 and closed the evidence of P.W1. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the petition to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and the Petition was allowed. Moreover, some cases of the petitioner and respondent have been transferred to Small Causes Court. The same was mentioned before the learned Magistrate and a request was made to transfer the case to Small Causes Court, but his request was not allowed. So, sometime is required to explain the facts of the case. Further, for the above reasons, the petitioner does not have belief over the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case. 5. The contents of the petition and the ingredients of the complaint have been perused and after perusing other related documents, the Court is of the view that there is no specific, crystal clear believable allegation from the petitioner to warrant transfer of the case in C.C.NO.3192 of 2005 from the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai to Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Magistrate allowed the reopen petition filed by the petitioner. As such, he has given an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case. It clearly shows the fairness of the learned Judge. As such, the above Criminal Original Petition for transfer of the case does not have any merit and has got to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.