VEERUPAKSHAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the fact that he disputes the ten ability of the complaint filed before the Court of the 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is a resident of Gulbarga and that he had borrowed a loan from the respondent, which has its Branch Office at Gulbarga. He had issued cheques towards discharge of the loan, which according to the respondent have been dishonoured though the same were furnished as security for the due repayment of the loan, from time to time. The respondent has not accounted for moneys that have been repaid overtime and without striking of accounts a false claim is sought to be made on the basis of the cheques which had been issued and collected as security for the due discharge of the loan. Therefore, he would submit that cheques having issued by the respondent having been presented at Bangalore and respondent claiming that it has been dishonored at Bangalore has sought to file the complaint at Bangalore. This would entail the petitioner travelling to Bangalore, on each date of hearing to Bangalore. This would be a serious financial burden on the petitioner not only to meet the travelling expenditure but also the other expenses involved at Bangalore. Therefore the present petition is filed claiming that since the respondent has its Branch Office at Gulbarga and since the transaction between the petitioner and Branch Office was at Gulbarga. It would be in the ends of justice, if the matter is directed to be transferred to the local Court at Gulbarga, where the respondent could very well-prosecute the same.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondent who has entered appearance would submit that admittedly the cheques issued by the petitioner have been dishonored at Bangalore. Since the cause of action has also arisen there notwithstanding that the transaction may have taken place at Gulbarga, the Court at Bangalore would certainly have jurisdiction. Therefore the question whether the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer would stand answered. The mere inconvenience or the financial burden, which the petitioner claims would not be a ground in seeking such transfer.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstance, since the respondent has a Branch Office at Gulbarga and could very well-prosecute the petition in the local Court, the contention of the petitioner that to defend the case at the Court at Bangalore would cause him hardship is a valid contention. In the ends of justice, this Court opines that it is a proper case, which could be conveniently transferred to Gulbarga. Since, the petitioner does not deny the transaction between himself and the respondent but only claims that there is no proper accounting of the loan transaction, it would be proper if the petitioner should deposit a reasonable amount of money to establish his bona fides in seeking such relief from this Court and in order to appease the respondent in not opposing the present order of transfer. Therefore, subject to the condition of deposit of 50% of the cheque amount, without prejudice to the case of the petitioner, the petition is allowed. The matter in C.C. No. 78 of 2012 pending on the file of the 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore be transferred to the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gulbarga and the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the cheque immediately on the matter being transferred to the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gulbarga. It shall issue fresh summons to the petitioner and on the very first date of hearing before the Court the petitioner shall comply with the deposit of the 50% of the cheque amount without prejudice to his case. Further proceedings before the Court at Bangalore are stayed in the meanwhile.