SUSHEELA B S Vs. MARUTHI FERTO CHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. S. Y. N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A. Hanumanthappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is registered as P. C. (No. 23/2000/- on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Hospet on the allegation that towards purchasing of fertilizer, the petitioner herein issued a cheque which was dishonoured when presented to the Bank and even after the service of statutory notice, the petitioner has not paid the amount. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence and directed issue of process to the petitioner. The petitioner filed this petition under S. 407 of Cr. P. C. to transfer the case from the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Hospet to the Court at Tumkur on the allegation that the petitioner is resident of Tumkur and carrying on her business in Tumkur town. She is suffering from hypertension and also back pain and that also her husband has undergone Bypass surgery and he is not in a position to travel. The distance between Hospet to Tumkur is 500 Kms and travelling is not good for her physically and in other respects also. The petitioner is a lady and therefore, she cannot travel alone without being accompanied by a male.

(3.) THE respondent filed objections contending inter alia that the respondent has made out a prima facie case against the petitioner and the complaint is registered in C. C. No. 67/2001 and no ground is made out to transfer the case to the Court at Tumkur. The requirement of 407 is satisfied. The petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 88,400/- covered under the cheque. The respondent is having its place of business and is engaged in manufacture and sale of fertilisers at Hospet having customers through out the State of Karnataka. The witnesses will have to travel from far off places to attend the case. Thus, respondent would incur additional expenses to come to the Court and to give evidence and also to examine the witnesses. Therefore, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.