Dismissed

Uma Mandhagini v. R.Kannan

Madras HC20 Nov 2023CRL OP/3272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of a cheque dishonour case from Sriperumbudur to Tambaram. The court rejected allegations of threat and unfitness to travel as factually incorrect or legally unsustainable, directing the local police to act on a complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer dismissed; Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Police Inspector directed to enquire into threat complaint.

Uma Mandhagini Vs R.Kannan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20-11-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl. OP No.3272 of 2023 And Crl.MP No.1961 of 2023

¶7

Uma Mandhagini ... Petitioner/Accused in STC 506/2019

¶8

Vs.

¶9

R.Kannan ... Respondent/Complainant in STC 506/2019

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for transferring the above case viz., STC No.506 of 2019 from the file of the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur to the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram or to any other Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Vijayakumar

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused in the private complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the year 2019. This petition for transfer the case to some other Court is filed after the matter was adjourned for questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

The petition for transfer is filed on the following grounds:-

¶18

(i) The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur is in remote

¶19

place and on the lonely road, whenever the petitioner go to attend the case, the henchmen of the complainant are threatening the petitioner.

¶20

(ii) In the Judicial Magistrate Court, the petitions filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has gone missing. The Court is not taking care of the petitions filed and had not even assigned SR Number/Diary Number to the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(iii) The petitioner is in family way and not physically fit to travel upto Sriperumbudur. Therefore, the case is to be transferred to any

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶25

other Court, within Chengalpattu District either at Tambaram or at Alandur.

¶26

This Court finds each of the abovesaid reasonings for transfer either not factually correct or legally sustainable.

¶27

Firstly, the Sriperumbudur Judicial Magistrate Court is very near the National Highways and even visible to the travellers passing through the National Highways. Secondly, the allegation that the accused with his henchmen threatening the petitioner is supported by a complaint to the police given earlier and same is pending investigation. Even hereinafter, if there is any threat to the petitioner herein, it is always open to her to give a complaint to the Presiding Officer of the Court or/and to the police, seeking protection. The third reason that the petitioner is not keeping good health and not fit to travel upto Sriperumbudur will equally apply even if the case is transferred to any other Court. For this reason, the case cannot be transferred to Court elsewhere. Wherever the case is transferred, the petitioner is to attend in person or file petition, seeking leave of absence.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a complaint given to the Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, with a copy marked to the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram dated 30.12.2022 sent by Registered Post submitted that the petitioner was threatened by the complainant Kannan on 23.12.2022. Therefore, the present Transfer Petition is filed as no action has been taken by the police.

¶32

On perusal of the documents placed before this Court, this

¶33

Court finds that the present Transfer Petition is prepared and signed by the petitioner on 28.12.2022, probably on the reopening day after the Christmas Holidays presented on 03.01.2023 in the Court. Thereafter the matter has been heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on several occasions, but nothing adverse has been reported. Therefore, while dismissing the petition for transfer, this Court directs the Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur to enquire upon the complaint sent by the petitioner on 30.12.2022 and act upon it in accordance with law.

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶37

With the abovesaid directions, the present Criminal Original

¶38

Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶39

20-11-2023

¶40

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn

¶41

¶42

1.TheDistrict Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶43

2.District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram .

¶44

3.The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Sriperumbudur.

¶45

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram.

¶46

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Crl.OP No.3272 of 2023

¶50

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶51

Svn

¶52

Crl. OP 3272 of 2023

¶53

20-11-2023

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Uma Mandhagini v. R.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Mandhagini v. R.Kannan

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

V.Perumal Vs Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee -Iii

Senthilkumar Vs State Rep by

Sivakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.M.Paramasivan Vs State by Inspector of Police D.V.A.C. Dindigul

Padmini Vs S.Santhakumar

B.Chittibabu Vs S.Balasundaram