Kerala High Court
Rajilabeevi Salim vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2017
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 85 of 2017 ()
-----------------------------
CC. NO.644/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, ERNAKULAM.
.....
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
RAJILABEEVI SALIM,
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O SALIM, NO.6/324,
KOCHUKONATHU VEEDU, ANAD KULAPPALLI,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 568.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. MUTHOOT CAPITAL SERVICES TOWERS,
M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
LEGAL ASSISTANT SRI.P.D.VELAYUDHAN.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JESTIN MATHEW.
R2 BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADV. SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH.
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 85 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE CC NO.644/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT V, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.85 of 2017
==================
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is accused for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.644/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent company. The dishonoured cheque involved in this case is for Rs.73,159/-.
2. The petitioner is based at Anad in Thiruvananthapuram district and her case is that the entire transactions between the petitioner and the complainant were with the Thiruvananthapuram branch of the 2nd respondent company and that she has never voluntarily executed and issued cheque to the Ernakulam office of the 2nd respondent company or to any other branches of the said company, etc. According to the petitioner, her blank signed cheque given at the time of commencement of the loan transaction has been misused by presenting same for the abovesaid complaint, etc. The main plea of the petitioner is that, she being a lady it will be extremely difficulty for her to travel all the way from Anad in Thiruvananthapuram district, to Ernakulam to face the trial. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner in this Petition is re as follows:
".... to transfer C.C.No.644/16 from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court V, Ernakulam to The Judicial First Magistrate Court Nedumangad in Thiruvananthapuram District for interest of justice."
Tr.P(Crl)85/17 - : 2 :-
3. Heard Sri.M.R.Sarin Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused), Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.John Prakash, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent company and the Sri.Justin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State.
4. After admitting this case, notice has been duly served on R-2 . The 2nd respondent company had earlier filed an affidavit dated 21.8.2017 contesting the plea made by the petitioner. The concluding portion of para 10 of the abovesaid affidavit dated 21.8.2017 filed by the 2nd respondent company reads as follows:
"10. ..... With the introduction of Core Banking Solutions, Banks have done away with the concept of the customer of a specific Branch. Instead the customer is for the bank and customer may transact through any branch of the bank, save for certain restrictions on cash transactions. Cash transactions can also be done at any branch, but certain caps are stipulated for such transactions at branches other than the parent branch. Hence, even if the cheques are presented to another district/state branch, the cause of action under the Section 142(2) & 142 A would arise only at Ernakulam."
5. Later the 2nd respondent complainant company has filed an additional affidavit dated 15.9.2017, wherein it is stated in para 2 thereof as follows:
"2. Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the 2nd Respondent company under the Negotiable Instruments Act in pursuing \initiating any proceedings thereunder, and while reiterating that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Ernakulam, is the jurisdictional court to try the case, the 2nd Respondent company avers that it has no objection in this Hon'ble Court transferring C.C.No. 644/16 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court V, Ernakulam to the competent court designated to try offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act in the district of Thiruvananthapuram as a special case."
Tr.P(Crl)85/17 - : 3 :-
6. Still further the 2nd respondent has now filed a supplementary affidavit dated 21.9.2017, wherein it is stated in para 2 thereof as follows:
"2. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Respondent to withdraw paragraph 10 in the affidavit dated 21.08.2017 filed by this Respondent before this Hon'ble Court."
7. Accordingly, it is now submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent that they are not contesting the merits of the matter and that the averments in para 10 of the abovesaid affidavit dated 21.8.2017 may be treated to have been withdrawn by them and further that on the basis of their additional affidavit dated 15.9.2017 that the 2nd respondent has no objection in this Court transferring the present complaint in C.C.No. 644/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam, to the court designated to try the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the district of Thiruvananthapuram, as a special case. Sri.M.R.Sarin Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) would submit that this Court may transfer the case from the Magistrate's Court at Ernakulam, to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court at Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district, as the said court at Nedumangad is very close to the petitioner's residence.
8. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent complainant company submits on the basis of the instructions that the 2nd respondent has no serious objection in this Court transfers the case to the court at Nedumangad. It is learnt through Tr.P(Crl)85/17 - : 4 :-
the Registry of this Court that there are three Magistrate courts at Nedumangad and Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III in that station is having comparatively lesser work load and hence it is ordered that the instant complaint in C.C.No. 644/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam, will stand transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district. The petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam, who shall then take immediate steps to transfer and transmit the case papers in relation to the instant complaint to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district. Upon receipt of the case papers, the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district, shall issue notice to the complainant and summons to the accused so as to appear on a convenient date. Thereafter, learned Magistrate at Nedumangad shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, the Original Petition (Crl) stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge