Allowed

J.Sumathi v. R.Narasimharajan

Madras HC16 Dec 2014CRL OP/28012/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed by an accused under Section 407 CrPC to transfer her cheque dishonour case from Salem to Kancheepuram due to her residence and family constraints, hearing the matter in the absence of the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 was withdrawn from the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and transferred to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram. A timeline of 15 days for record tran

J.Sumathi Vs R.Narasimharajan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:16.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.28012 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009

¶6

J.Sumathi .. Petitioner

¶7

.. Vs .. R.Narasimharajan .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to withdraw and transfer the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem to any other learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Kancheepuram.

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and transfer the same to any other Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kancheepuram.

¶10

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.314 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and the respondent herein is the complainant.

¶11

3.It appears that the respondent has filed a complaint as against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.314 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem. Now, the petitioner being the accused in the above Calender Case, has filed the present Criminal Original Petition after invoking the provisions of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the relief as afore stated.

¶12

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing today Mr.V.Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is present. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the accused in the above said case is said to have executed a promissory note on 5.3.2008 executed in favour of the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. She is residing at Kancheepuram. Further, she is having three school going children. Therefore, she finds it difficult to travel to Salem all along from Kancheepuram to attend each and every trial proceedings of the above said case. Therefore, she has approached this Court seeking the relief of withdrawal of the above said case, which is on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and transfer the same to any other Judicial Magistrate Court at Kancheepuram.

¶14

6.It is to be noted that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present. However, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this matter stands posted today for the appearance of the respondent. However, there is no representation for the respondent today also. Under this circumstance, there is no other go for this Court excepting to pass an order after hearing the learned counsel appearing of the petitioner on merits in the absence of the respondent.

¶15

7.Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, particularly the reason for the withdrawal of the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, this Court is inclined to transfer the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.

¶16

8.Having regard to the related facts and circumstances of the case, the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.

¶17

9.This petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

10.The transferor Court namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem is ordered to transmit the entire records to the transferee Court namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the transferee Court is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.314 of 2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without causing further delay.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
cla
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.V.Sairam,Advocate SR.No.62023
+1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate SR.No.61700
CRL.O.P.No.28012 of 2009
SK[co]
gp/10.1.15

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

J.Sumathi v. R.Narasimharajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Sumathi v. R.Narasimharajan

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

N.Dhanalakshmi Vs K.Senthamarai

A.Vedharethinam Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Leena Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mrs.D.Akila Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Mahendran Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Velumani Vs the State by