A. Alima vs A. Charles Vincent Paul

K.N. Basha, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with these petitions seeking for the relief of

transferring the cases pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai in C.C. Nos. 473, 475, 477, 480, 478, 474, 479 and 476 of

2006 for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in all these petitions, the petitioners is one and the same and the petitioner is facing

trial for the alleged offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all these

complaints were filed by the same respondent/ complainant viz., Bharti Tele/Ventures Limited, Bharti Towers, 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai

It is further contended that in the bills of the respondent/complainant company it is specifically mentioned as condition No. 5 to the effect that

all disputes are subject to Chennai jurisdiction.

The learned Counsel also contended that the petitioner is a lady and she is a permanent resident of Chennai and as such no prejudice would be

caused to the respondent/complainant as the respondent/complainant is also having regional office at Chennai, if the cases are transferred to any

one of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in a decision

in Ayyannar Agencies and Another Vs. Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd. and Another, .

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Madurai Court is also having jurisdiction to entertain the case filed for the

offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that it is the right of the respondent to choose any place of jurisdiction for

the purpose of filing a complaint. The learned Counsel also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the trial are proceeded

at Madurai Court.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.

It is seen that admittedly the petitioner in all these petitions seeking for the relief of transfer is one and the same. It is also seen that even the

respondent/complainant are also same in all these matters. All these matters are relating to the complaints preferred by the respondent/complainant

for the alleged offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The undisputed fact remains that the respondent/complainant is having its regional

office at Chennai and the petitioner admittedly a permanent resident of Chennai and she is a lady. Therefore, the nature of the allegations of the

complaint and as well as the parties are one and the same in respect of all these matters. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the

disputed telephonic connection also given at Chennai. It is pertinent to note that even in the bills the respondent/complainant stipulated one of the

conditions as condition No. 5 to the effect that all disputes are subject to Chennai jurisdiction.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/complainant in the event of transfer of all

these cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai to any of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The learned Counsel for

the petitioner rightly placed reliance in a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Ayyannar Agencies and Another Vs. Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd. and

Another, . The Hon''ble Apex Court has held in that decision as follows:

...Thereafter one complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners in respect of 2 cheques, that too for

the same offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This petition is for transferring that case to Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai as

parties in all the cases are the same and the offence is of the same nature though sprouted from different cheques. It would be advantageous to all

the parties to have all the said cases before the same Court, contended the learned Counsel.

We also feel that the transfer prayed for could only be in the interest of justice and also for the convenience of conducting the trial and disposal

of the cases. We, therefore, order transfer of C.C. No. 808 of 1998 titled as Sri Vishnu Cement v. Sri Ayyanar Agencies pending before the IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad to XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapad, Chennai.

This Court is of the considered view that the above principle laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the

instant cases as in these cases also parties are one and the same. The petitioner who is a lady and permanent resident of Chennai and the

complainant is having regional office at Chennai and coupled with the fact that the disputed telephonic connection also given at Chennai and

therefore, certainly it would be an advance to both the parties to have the trial at the Magistrate Court at Chennai in the interest of justice and also

for convenience of conducting trial and disposal of all the cases.

Therefore, this Court is constrained to transfer the cases pending in C.C. Nos. 473, 475, 477, 480, 478, 474, 479 and 476 of 2006 before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai to the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai is

hereby directed to send the case records to the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

The petition is ordered accordingly. Connected MPs are closed.