JAYEETA DAS Vs. TANISHQ TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing proceedings at the instance of the respondent (Complainant), under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and she has applied for transfer of the case from the Karkardooma Court to a competent Court at Alipore, Kolkata.

(2.) Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in the teaching profession and was falsely projected (by her estranged husband) to be the Proprietor of Aditya Security System. Thereafter a false case was registered against the petitioner as the Proprietor of the Firm alleging that she had issued cheques to the Complainant, which were dishonored by the Bank. The counsel submits that this Complaint case was registered collusively by the estranged husband of the petitioner and the complainant.

(3.) The petitioner is staying with her minor son at Behala, Kolkata and should be protected from facing prosecution in the false case which was registered collusively at Delhi by her estranged husband. The petitioner's counsel then points out that earlier the petitioner had filed the Transfer Petition(C) No. 716/2020 for transfer of Recovery Suit filed by the same Complainant, but that TP was not entertained by this Court on 15/7/2020 on the ground that this was a civil matter and the personal presence of the Defendant is not necessary.