Karnataka High Court
Sri S Ramanna vs Sri H L Rukmangada on 24 March, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
CrE.P No.426 l.f20()8 IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24% DAY or MARCH 2009 BEFORE) THE rzoxrsm DR. JUSTICE K. B1-:A:<T§zAvA:1jsAI:4?&fV--' A- CRIMINAL PETITION :\zo.425.1._/2'0o_s" "Cf; ' 1' BETWEEN V C' C V 1' Sri S Ramanna, S / o Sauna Veeranna, Age: 61 years, Adiralu EX. Chairman, R/o C N Malige Village, . =_ HiriyurTa1uk, V A , A Chitradurga District. _, h Petitioner (By Sri Kukkajié petitioner) AND: ' Sri H L Rukmangada; . V S /0 late L C 4;h"i1~:l<annaiah,l Age.="'4'6. yea:$:~ " ---------- ~ " R/ o'Sidhas_l1ra,rria, _ " 2 Hale Palya, C " ' ._Tiptur, C A 'VP1;mkurDlsti'ict. ' Respondent
l(lBy_S'ri..S Swamy, Adv., for respondent) Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 r/W Section 482 of fl1e__Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to transfer C C V._*NVo.'739/2008 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 81, JMFC, Cr}? N0.426 1 /2008 Tiptur in Tumkur District, to the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) J I\/EFC, Hiriyur, in Chitradurga District.
This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court.grnade the following: 7 ORDER _ C The petitioner/ accused in C C No.739/ 2008 on Judge (Jr. Divn.)/JMFC at Tiptur, Tumkur tjiétiéic-~:,_ is b~efor'e'.this'iCoii.rt 7 under Section 407 r/W Section 482 of the Ciode"o_iCrirn_i_na1.Proeednre, praying for transferring the ease in C /"2008 on the file of Civil Judgde (Jr. Divn.) /91%/[l?'C at'W'l'iV§t1,ii~t,i}'1 T1'1irni'<'u1"'V'District, to Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Hiriyur iniiehifxzafimrgg*n;s:fi--:;t.
2. The brief facts »eas_:e'vv--l,_eading to the filing of the Petition may be stated as finder: A V The respondent has fil-ed? a private complaint against the petitioner' / alleging that the petitioner herein has committed_offen=ee.._iinder'_iSeetion 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act iv.(in"ishort, Act'): the ground that the cheque issued by the v ' for a of Rs.8 1akh honoured.
Cr}? No.426 I #2008
3. The learned trial Judge, after perusing the cornpiaint, taking cognizance for the offence 'under Section 138 of the Act, recordedzsworn statement and issued process to the petitioner/ accused f0.f_iihe'oi?feiI7ce under Section 138 of the Act as per order dated Petition came to be filed on 18.9.2008. '_ , , ._ Vg .
4. It is submitted that so far the ipeti;t'ioneriic»ha's_'not _'e--.nt'e.red appearance before the trial Court. Theiipresenti '¥'etition1cian1e._Vto he by the petitioner /accused seeking transfer-of' the caseilfromiiflivil Judge (Jr. Divn.)/JMFC, Tiptur to c1vi1_i';t:ug1ge {Jr."£)'ivn;}/JMFC, Hiriyur, on the ground .i»1;()dgediiiiaiiii;3rivate complaint in PCR No.7/2008 on oi" one H L Gravirangappa and A G Parthasarathi," bigth ireiisiidents of Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, for Siection--s'143, 145, 323, 504 and 506 }."/W Section 1.49 I' aAr1'd4:af)Va.r:tfrom that the petitioner is suffering from hiper itension, heart deceiaseg' arthritis and he cannot undertake journey to along idistance from Chitradurga District to Turnkur District to a:t'tend.f1:he case. It is also contended that there is a threat to the life of ii 2 i " -the petitic-nerd in Tiptur.
L/to Crl.P No.426l/2008
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision reported in 2002(4) Crl. L J 250 (SMT. SUSHEELA B S Vs. MARUTHI____FE3RTO CHEMICALS LTD.) on the point that the Court has to consider..:tr§~psfer application on merits of each case. 0 V I
6. On the other hand, leaiiinecifc..:CoU.nsel' "?,t_1'i1e res ondent corn lainant submits that "there is no *riirn¢av..ofaci.e case' p _ . ._ p .
made out by the petitioner/ accused seeking translercoif the case. It is submitted that the petitioner iisfiriot present Petition came to be filed with a malafide..in.te'ntion the._*petitioner/ accused has not yet appeared Ciourt.-_V further submits that the decision cited iiCoii;Iri.lsel rendered in Smt. Susheela's case is not applicable', Pie has reported in (2000) 10 S C C 433 (ABHIRAM NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL . AG§e2ICULTUfé?-\L-_ ._i91A,RKs9rINs..coRPoRAT1oN LTD.) i7",_i_ic'lvaims that he is 61 years. So far, he has not iioiventevred epp.iearaneee?':_f:xefore the trial Court. He himself has filed a C . prixrapte.complainit*before the JMFC at I-Iiriyur against two other persons. l'i._i¢" i5l:'ingVpai"*~private complainant, he has to appear in the private as and when the case is posted. It is crystal clear that the L/ CFLP No.4261/2008 petitioner is not infirm. Merely because of alleged heart disease/arthritis, it is not a good ground to transfer the .<:VéSeic.frorn J MFC at Tiptur to JMFC at Hiriyur. The decision referred__by"tl~iev-.1_eaIin_ed Counsel for the petitioner/ accused, is pertaining to a o'f_a.fernalet suffering from hiper tension and her husband:..wla}-5if'he.a.rt*--.patierit..,and therefore the Court has held that it' was d'i.f_ficult fori travei. distance of 500 kms., to attend the casein'Erieepyingiiiiia. facts and circumstances of the case on trteioyne ieannot bieisiaid that the decision rendered in Srnti to the case on hand. On the other ha.§r1di,';;ryt;he decision citediiby. learned Counsel for the respondent/ libhiram Veer's case by the Hon'ble Apex thieiifoiurs to the case on hand. In my opinion, there entertain the Petition.
if lithe----Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. flhe "p.etit_ionier. is directed to appear before the trial Court for iiiiftirtyher proce'edinigsi'iio_n.i511.6.2009 without service of summons. sa./-gm Fudge