Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 325 (MAD)

Prabhavathy v. Udhayakumar

2016-01-28

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2016
ORDER : This petition has been filed, seeking to transfer the case in Cr.M.P. No. 2637 of 2015 pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram to this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent obtained a cheque from her and by forging her signature, filled Rs.30 lakhs in the said cheque and sent it for collection. When it got bounced, he filed a case in STC No. 355 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with delay in order to harass her. To enable the petitioner to prove the forgery, she filed a petition in Cr. M.P. No. 3088 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare her signature with the signature found in the alleged disputed cheque. 2.1. It is submitted that the Judicial Magistrate allowed the said petition on 30.04.2015, by imposing the following three conditions: i. The petitioner should deposit Rs.5,000/- before 08.05.2015 for commission fees; ii. The petitioner should produce 5 documents containing her signature relating to the year 2012 & 2013; and iii. The petitioner should appear in Court and provide 20 signature in Court. Though the petitioner was willing to comply with the 1st and 3rd conditions, she could not comply with the 2nd condition for want of documents and hence, the petition in Cr.M.P.No.3088 of 2014 was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on 13.05.2015, against which, she preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram in Cr.M.P.No.2637 of 2015 to modify the 2nd condition. However, the matter could not be proceeded for want of a regular Sessions Judge, as the Mahila Judge, holding the additional charge of the Sessions Judge, is unable to pass order on it due to work pressure. In the meantime, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi insisted the petitioner to proceed with the case by posing it for final hearing on 30.11.2015. 2.2. It is further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has secured her passport and an old registered document dated 20.12.2010, which are prior to the date of the disputed cheque and in addition, she has stated that her Bank account opening form and her specimen signatures prior to the cheque date with the Bank can also be sent for verification and comparison. According to the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the case, which is pending before the Sessions, is transferred to some other Court or this Court to accept those documents and proceed with the matter. 3. The respondent has vehemently opposed the petition, on the ground that the cheque that was presented to the of Rs.30 lakhs got bounced and the petitioner has not so far complied with the three conditions. It is contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that case is transferred to some other Court, it is to be noted that the revision before the Sessions Court has been filed with enormous delay and that unless or until, the delay is condoned, the main petition could not be taken up. 4. Heard the counsel on either side. 5. It is not in dispute that the three conditions mentioned supra were imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and that there is no assurance forthcoming to the effect that other two conditions will be duly complied with and without doing so, the petitioner has sought for modification of the 2nd condition. That apart, the matter is pending before the Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram with regard to condonation of the delay in entertaining the criminal revision petition. 6. The only reason stated for transfer of the case to some other court or this Court that there is no regular Sessions Judge posted, as the Mahila Judge has been holding the additional charge of the Sessions Judge. The matter is pending from 2014 and if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, there is every possibility of others knocking at the doors of this Court with the similar prayer, which cannot be accepted. 7. Though this Court was not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, in order to give quietus to the issue, a suggestion was made to the petitioner for deposit of Rs.10 lakhs so as to keep the said amount in a fixed deposit scheme without permitting the respondent to withdraw the same, so that this Court could direct the Magistrate to scrutinize the plea of the petitioner. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not willing to deposit the amount, leaving this Court to pass orders on merits. 8. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not willing to deposit the amount, leaving this Court to pass orders on merits. 8. It is seen that the petition to condone the delay is pending before the Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and since no regular Sessions Judge was posted, the Mahila Judge was constrained to hear the matter and pass orders. But, due to overload and work pressure, the Mahila Judge could not be able to take up the matter for passing orders. 9. Since already two years had elapsed from the date of filing of the complaint, this Court is not inclined to stay further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 355 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 10. Therefore, while rejecting the prayer for transfer of the case and stay of further proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi is directed to accept the documents to be produced by the petitioner and scrutinize the same, dehors the pendency of revision before the Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of S.T.C. No. 355 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the Magistrate shall deposit the same in a recurring deposit till the conclusion of S.T.C. No. 355 of 2014 and the respondent cannot withdraw the same. ii) It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as there is no interim stay, pendency of the proceedings before the Sessions Court is not a bar for the Trial Court to proceed with the matter and pass further orders on merits and in accordance with law, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not complied with anyone of the conditions mentioned in the order dated 30.04.2015. It is made clear that further extension of time for deposit of the amount shall not be granted to the petitioner at any cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Crl.O.P. is disposed of.