S P LAKSHMANAN Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed, seeking an order to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, declaring that the criminal proceeding pending before Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Pune, the first respondent herein in S.C.C. No. 18814/2006 as null and void or in the alternative to transfer the aforesaid criminal case to any competent Judicial Magistrate at Chennai.

(2.) Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent had given financial assistance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/- for purchase of used Toyota Qualis Car, bearing Regn. No. TN21-R-5702. The aforesaid amount shall be repaid in 35 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 12,850/-, inclusive of interest payable on the principle amount and for prompt repayment, the second respondent collected 18 post dated cheques for a sum of Rs. 12,850/- each from the petitioner herein payable on 20th of every month commencing from February 2005. According to the petitioner, he had paid instalments initially for five months and for which, post dated cheques were honoured. Subsequently on 31.08.2005, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the second respondent with an assurance that he would take back the vehicle after clearing the dues for the default period. However, due to the dishonour of other cheques, the second respondent initiated proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and now the criminal proceeding is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No. 3, Pune, Maharashtra State, which is sought to be declared null and void or alternatively to transfer the case to any competent Judicial Magistrate Court, Chennai, under the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. R. Uma Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the writ petition itself is not legally maintainable, on the ground that the legal action initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, could not be challenged by way of filing writ petition under Article 226, by the petitioner, who has admitted the issuance of the dishonoured cheques. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Ors., 1999 7 SCC 510 and also the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajchand Tea Industries v. Judicial Magistrate Class First Raipur, 2007 3 CTC 705.