Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2686 (MAD)

M. Easwaramoorthy v. C. Easwaramoorthy

2013-07-29

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The revision petitioners herein have filed Transfer O.P.No.2083 of 2007, on the file of Ist Additional District Sessions Judge, Erode against the respondents herein stating that the above 14 respondents/complainants and other 4 complainants have filed 18 cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against them and the said cases are pending before the various Judicial Magistrate Courts, viz., Judicial Magistrate-I, Judicial Magistrate-II and Judicial Magistrate-III at Erode. Out of the 18 cases, 14 cases are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, 2 cases are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode and two cases are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above transfer petition to transfer all the cases to Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam since the complainants are threatening them while they are attending the Courts at Erode, on each and every hearing. Further, the first petitioner is working at Karur as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Soil Conservation Department and his wife i.e, the second petitioner is working at Panchayat Union Middle School, Kangayam, as teaching staff. Therefore, they are unable to attend the concerned Courts for each and every hearing. 2. The said transfer O.P. had been resisted by the first respondent after filing a counter statement. The complainants never threatened the petitioners while they are attending the Courts at Erode. If 18 cases were transferred to Kangayanm, the complainants and their 36 witnesses have to travel from Erode to Kangayam. All the witnesses are bank officers, who are also Government employees and their official work will be affected if they go to Kangayam Court to give evidence. 3. The fourth and ninth respondent also filed counter statement and opposed the transfer petition in the same way. After hearing the arguments of all sides and on perusing the averments of the parties, the learned judge dismissed the said transfer petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the transfer O.P, the above revision has been filed. 5. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioners argued that both the petitioners had borrowed money from unregistered finance institutions during the year 2000-2001, for ailment of first petitioner's father. Taking advantage of the situation, the said finance institutions had obtained signature of the petitioners on the blank paper, blank cheques and promissory notes. 5. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioners argued that both the petitioners had borrowed money from unregistered finance institutions during the year 2000-2001, for ailment of first petitioner's father. Taking advantage of the situation, the said finance institutions had obtained signature of the petitioners on the blank paper, blank cheques and promissory notes. Subsequently, the said loan amount with accrued interest thereon had been settled by the petitioners, but the security papers were not returned. Thereafter, 18 cheques were misused by the complainants and 18 false cases were levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that the first petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer, who is attached to the Agricultural Engineering Department at Mayiladuthurai and the second petitioner is a teaching staff working at Panchayat Union School, Kangayam. As such, both the Government employees are not able to attend Courts frequently, for each and every hearing. The learned counsel further submitted that while the petitioners are attending the Court at Erode, the respondents herein attacked the petitioners at Erode and hence, the petitioners were forced to lodge a complaint before the Erode Taluk Police Station, wherein the case has been registered as Crime No.64 of 2006. The petitioners had also filed a case against the respondents in Crime No.13 of 2007, under the Indian Penal Code and also under the TNPE Rate of E.O. Act. Therefore, there is no prima-facie case on the side of the respondents. However, the petitioners are prepared to answer to the Courts on the said cases. He further submits that if all the 18 cases transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, the respondents will not be prejudiced and the character of the cases will not be changed. 6. The very competent counsels for the fourth respondent and twelfth respondent respectively argued that the petitioners have not been threatened at any point of time, while they were attending the Court. In order to avoid appearance before the Court and also to evade cheque amount to the complainants, they have lodged a false complaint before the Erode Police Station. Both are highly literate persons and they have duly issued the cheques in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt. Now, 18 cases are pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Judicial Magistrate-II and Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode against the petitioners. The original jurisdiction and the pecuniary jurisdiction are arising before the concerned Courts. Both are highly literate persons and they have duly issued the cheques in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt. Now, 18 cases are pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Judicial Magistrate-II and Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode against the petitioners. The original jurisdiction and the pecuniary jurisdiction are arising before the concerned Courts. Besides, in order to prove the complainant's case against the accused/revision petitioners herein, 36 bank officers have to be examined as relevant witnesses and they have been listed in the said complaints. If all the cases were transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, the 18 complainants and their 36 witnesses would be put into hardship. Only for the sake of convenience of the accused, all the cases could not be transferred from one Court to another Court as it would create multiplicity of proceedings also. Hence, the very competent counsel for the fourth respondent and the highly competent counsel for the twelfth respondent jointly entreated the Court to dismiss the above revision. 7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this Court does not find any lapse in the order. However, both the petitioners are Government employees. Therefore, their appearance are dispensed with, in all 18 cases, which are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Judicial Magistrate-II and Judicial Magistrate-III. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Courts as and whenever required, if their presence is absolutely necessary. 8. This Court further directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, learned Judicial Magistrate-II and the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode to dispose all the cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by this Court's discussions. 9. In the result, the above revision is dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, the order passed in transfer O.P.No.2083 of 2007, on the file of Ist Additional District Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 13.02.2008 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.