Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking withdrawal of the case registered as C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, which was subsequently converted to C.C.No.313 of 2006 before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. The petitioner also sought transfer of the case to any Judicial Magistrate Court in Chennai.

The respondent/complainant initiated the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused. The dispute arose from a chit fund transaction involving Shriram Chit Funds, Tamil Nadu, where the complainant participated in an auction and became a member through the accused. The complainant alleged that he signed blank papers at the accused’s request, which were later filled in to allow adjustment of dues from his account. A cheque for Rs.1,20,000/- obtained from the accused was dishonoured upon presentation, leading to the complaint.

The petitioner contended that after separating from her husband (brother of the complainant), her husband took away all her signed blank cheques, and one cheque was misused by the complainant on the husband’s instigation. The petitioner alleged harassment by the respondent’s associates, preventing her from attending court, resulting in a non-bailable warrant that was later recalled. She also cited personal difficulties, including lack of family support and employment obligations, to justify her inability to attend court in Virudhunagar. The petitioner argued that jurisdiction lies in Chennai, where the cheque was allegedly taken by her husband.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the case registered in Virudhunagar should be withdrawn and transferred to a Judicial Magistrate Court in Chennai.
  2. Whether the jurisdiction of the court in Virudhunagar is proper in light of the petitioner’s claim regarding the cheque's location and other circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner married the complainant’s brother and later separated due to differences.
  • The petitioner’s husband took away her signed blank cheques, and one was misused by the complainant on the husband’s instigation.
  • The petitioner faced harassment by the respondent’s associates, preventing court attendance.
  • She has no male family support and has personal and employment difficulties attending court in Virudhunagar.
  • The cheque was taken from Chennai, hence jurisdiction lies in Chennai courts.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondent filed the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Virudhunagar, where the transaction and cheque presentation took place.
  • The petitioner organised members for the chit fund and facilitated the complainant’s membership.
  • The cheque was dishonoured and the legal process was initiated appropriately in Virudhunagar.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the contentions of both parties and the submissions made by their counsel. It held that the dispute between the petitioner, respondent, and petitioner’s husband does not justify transferring the case. The petitioner’s allegation that jurisdiction lies in Chennai because the cheque was taken there was found to be frivolous and not a valid ground for transfer. The court affirmed that the Magistrate in Virudhunagar is competent to try the case and that the petition for transfer lacked merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The Criminal Original Petition seeking withdrawal and transfer of the case was dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the case will continue to be tried in the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. No broader legal precedent was established by this ruling.

    R. Lalithambal v. J. Stanly Jones

    The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to withdraw the case in C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and to transfer the same to any of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Chennai.

    2. The respondent/complainant's case is that he has filed the C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, against the petitioner/accused herein for an alleged offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused is an organising member for Chits in Shriram Chit Funds for the past several years. The accused has organised her friends and relatives of the Chit Shriram Chit Funds, Tamil Nadu. The complaint also had become a member in the Chit, through the accused persons. On 10.03.2001, at the 23rd auction, the complainant bidden the Chit for Rs.80,000/- and the same was accepted by the company. The complainant was in Virudhunagar and the accused was in Chennai. Further, they are related as in-laws. On request of the accused, the complainant signed some blank papers and sent it to her. It is alleged by the complainant that the same was conveniently filled up by the accused person stating that the company can adjust the dues payable to the company from the complainant's account.

    3. The complainant finally obtained a cheque from the accused for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his bankers, namely, Indian Bank, Virudhunagar Branch. The said cheque was returned on 07.06.2003. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice and approached the Honourable Court by way of the above complaint. Along with the complaint, seven documents were filed and three witnesses have been mentioned.

    4. Now, the petitioner/accused has sought for transfer of the above case in C.C.No.311 of 2003 on the file of J.M.No.1, Virudhunagar, subsequently converted as C.C.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, for the below mentioned reasons. It is alleged that the petitioner married one Thomas Jayaprabhakar, who is the brother of the respondent herein. The petitioner and her husband lived as husband and wife for some time; thereafter due to difference of opinion, they got separated. In this situation, the petitioner's husband had taken away all her signed blank cheques from the house and one of the cheque leaf was misused by the respondent on the instigation of the petitioner's husband. On the misused cheque, the complaint has been filed. The petitioner has further alleged that she has been prevented by the respondent's rowdy elements from appearing before the Court. Hence, the learned Magistrate has issued a non-bailable warrant. The same was recalled by the Court. Due to the harassment of the respondent, she could not attend the Court. She has no mother, and her father is aged about 87 years. Further the petitioner has alleged that she has no male help to attend the Court.

    5. Further, the petitioner has stated that she is an employee in a bank and as such she could not attend the Court. Further, the petitioner has alleged that the said cheque was taken away by the petitioner's husband from Chennai. So, the jurisdiction comes under Chennai Court.

    6. Considering the contentions of the petitioner and respondent of their cases and after hearing the Learned Counsel, the Court is of the view that just because of dispute between the petitioner, the respondent and petitioner's husband, the case cannot be transferred. The petitioner has alleged that the cheque has been taken, by her husband, from Chennai. Hence she has contended that the Jurisdiction comes under Chennai. This is a frivolous allegation and hence it cannot be entertained. Further, the Jurisdiction Magistrate is the competent person to try the case. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

    mps/mra To

    1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.

    2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    R. Lalithambal v. J. Stanly Jones
    (Aug 7, 2009)