Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3249 (MAD)

Jeyaraman @ Abdul Rahuman v. Kumar

2014-09-11

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment 1. There is no representation on either side. 2. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli dated 03.07.2012 made in Tr.C.M.P.No.559 of 2012, a petition filed for the transfer of C.C.No.43 of 2007 from the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur to the Court of any other Judicial Magistrate. 3. The above said calender case came to be instituted by the respondent herein, on a complaint against the petitioner herein for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, based on the dishonoured cheque dated 16.10.2006 drawn for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- and issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. 4 .Personal allegations were made against the Presiding Officer, who dealt with the calender case and the criminal miscellaneous petition came to be filed for the transfer of the said case from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur to any other Judicial Magistrate. The criminal miscellaneous petition came to be filed in 2012. It was further alleged therein that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court openly expressed his opinion as to the sustainability of the pleas taken by the revision petitioner and compelled the revision petitioner to seek compounding of the offence. The further averment made therein was that since the opportunities to put forth his defence and adduce evidence were denied by the then Presiding Office of the trial Court, he did not expect proper justice from that Court and hence, the case needed to be transferred to the file of any other Court. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing, dismissed the said petition seeking transfer of the said case, by order dated 03.07.2012, holding the allegations made by the petitioners to be vague and wild. 6. Having preferred the revision against the said order in 2012 itself, the petitioner has not evinced any interest in proceeding with the case in the present criminal revision case. Perhaps, the apprehension expressed by him and the prayer seeking transfer of the case would have become infructuous due to the transfer of the then incumbent of the post of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur to some other station. From the Registry, it is ascertained that the then Presiding Officer has been shifted from the place and a new Presiding Officer has taken charge on 02.05.2013. From the Registry, it is ascertained that the then Presiding Officer has been shifted from the place and a new Presiding Officer has taken charge on 02.05.2013. Without even informing the same to this Court so that the hurdle for the further progress to the case could have been removed, the petitioner wanted to drag the case, despite the fact that the prayer in the petition for transfer of the case has become infructuous. 7. The criminal case against the petitioner came to be instituted in the year 2007. For more than five years, the petitioner was able to drag on the case and only, when he apprehended that a judgment on merit was inevitable, he approached the Sessions Court with the petition for transfer. The same was rightly dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, holding that the averments were vague and wild and the intention of the petitioner was to protract the case as long as possible. The observation made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge regarding the intention of the petitioner in filing the transfer petition stands fortified by the fact that the petitioner after having filed this revision in 2012, has not evinced any interest in proceeding with the revision. This Court also concurs with the view of the learned Principal Sessions Judge that the object sought to be achieved by filing the revision is protracting of the case. This Court also holds that filing the present revision and allowing it to be left without representation shall be nothing but an attempt of abuse of process of the Court. 8. For the said reasons, this Court comes to a conclusion that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur is directed to dispose of C.C.No.43 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible. In any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.