Allowed

Ramendra Repti Bala v. Pankaj Haldar

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2022TPCR/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed three petitions to transfer cheque dishonour complaint cases pending at JMFC Pakhanjur to JMFC Dhamtari. The court accepted allegations of local interference and lack of police action as valid grounds for transfer to ensure fair trial. Parties directed to appear forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The three complaint cases were transferred to JMFC Dhamtari. Parties directed to appear thereon 30th March. Petitioner may file for cancellation of arrest warrant.

Ramendra Repti Bala Vs Pankaj Haldar — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

TPCR No. 19 of 2021

¶5

Ramendra Repati Bala S/o Repti Bala Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Shriniwaspur, Post Office- Vishnupur, Tahsil- Chamorshi, District- Gadchiroli Maharastra.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pankaj S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 39 Years R/o Purana Bazar Square, Main Road- Pakhanjur District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

TPCR No. 21 of 2021

¶11

Ramendra Repti Bala S/o Reptibala, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Shriniwaspur, Post Office - Vishnupur, Tahsil - Chamorshi, District - Gadchiroli, Maharashtra

¶12

---- Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar, Aged About 31 Years R/o Purana Bazaar Square, Main Road - Pakhanjur Pv. 25 Post Pakhanjur District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

TPCR No. 22 of 2021

¶17

Ramendra Repti Bala S/o Repti Bala, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Shriniwaspur, Post Office Vishnupur, Tahsil Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli Maharashtra.

¶18

---- Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Pankaj S/o Late Ramesh Haldar, Aged About 31 Years R/o Purana Bazaar Square, Main Road, Pakhanjur P.V. 25 Post Pakhanjur Tehsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶21

---- Respondent

¶22

¶23

For Petitioners	:	Dr. N.K. Shukla Senior Advocate with Shri Arjit Tiwari and Nikhilesh Adhikari, Advocate
For Respondent	:	Shri Sunil Sahu

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶25

Order On Board

¶26

04/03/2022

¶27

Heard.

¶28

Through these petitions, the petitioner seeks to transfer the complaint case Nos. 92/2020, 18/2020 and 97/2020 which are pending before J.M.F.C, Pakhajapur, District North Baster, Kanker to any other district.

¶29

It is contended that these cases are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the respondent against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to Annexure P-5 and submits that on 05.02.2020 when the petitioner went to attend the Court with advocate the Presiding Officer was on leave and while they were returning back they were stopped by the residents of the area and were taken to village and constrained till 8.30 evening of next day and agreement was signed that they would discharge the liability and pay the amount by next date. He further submits that the incident was reported immediately to the police, however no action has been taken, therefore he prays that the cases may be transferred to any other J.M.F.C court in C.G. jurisdiction.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no averments of thereat were made in the application for transfer and only simple allegations were made that the area where the cases are pending is effected by Naxals and fresh grounds are raised in the court which are not correct.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶32

¶33

Having perused the document Annexure P-5 which is a report made to the police Official IG sent by registered post on 26.06.2020 bearing letter dated 23.03.2020, which purports that they went to Court of JMFC for hearing from Gulcher and while coming back after the hearing they were intercepted by the residence and taken to their village and made to sign the agreement. The documents shows that the report was made to the police but subsequent to it though the report was made but it was not investigated stating that it was a issue of monetary transaction.

¶34

Considering the nature of allegations made, in order to keep faith in the judicial system of the parties, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused if all the three cases are transferred to JMFC which is near by. Taking into the fact, all the three cases bearing Nos. No. 92/2020, 18/2020 and 97/2020 are hereby directed to be transferred to JMFC, Dhamtari which is nearest district head quarter. It is further directed that the parties shall appear before Dhamtari, JMFC on 30th March if the cases are not concluded till date. Further, it is directed that the petitioner may file necessary applications for cancellation of arrest warrant before the concerned JMFC.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶38

Jyoti

Ramendra Repti Bala v. Pankaj Haldar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra Repti Bala v. Pankaj Haldar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs Anil Sahu

Lawrens Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parasuram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Abha Sahu Vs Rameshwar Prasad Sahu

Ramendra Repati Bala Vs Pankaj

Ramendra Repti Bala Vs Pankaj Haldar