CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Maruthi Ferto Chemicals Ltd. vs Susheela B.S.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 14 February 2003 · Citation: (2003) 2 CTC 562

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y. K. Sabharwal, J · H. K. Sema, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 407 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 353 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant is the complainant, A complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, being CC No. 67/2001 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and JMFC Hospet has been ordered by the High Court to be withdrawn from that Court and has been transferred to the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and JMFC, Tumkur with a direction to try the case himself or assign to any other additional Court having jurisdiction to try the same. The transfer order was passed on a petition u/s 407, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused before the High Court. The main reasons for the transfer are the health problem of the respondent and her husband. It is to be borne in mind that the instant case is not a case of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife where the wife has prayed to the High Court or before this Court, and therefore, the reliance on the decisions transferring those type of cases at the instance of the wife do not have much relevance for the present purposes. The transfer order u/s 407, Cr.P.C, is not required to be made on consideration of trivial grievances or the convenience of only one party. It is also to be borne in mind that the proceedings u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are that of a summon case and in case of personal difficulty, facts justifying, an application for exemption from personal appearance can be made and considered by the Court trying the complaint case. The impugned order of transfer would also result in inconvenience to the witnesses. They will have to be taken to the Court to which the complaint has been transferred. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the order of transfer was made by the High Court on any justifiable ground. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The complaint case will continue to be tried in the Court in which it was pending before transfer. We hope that the trial Court would expeditiously decide the matter.