M/S SWATHI STEELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.P. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS Vs. C. ASHOK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.NO.259 of 2013, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli and he is facing prosecution at the instance of the second respondent herein viz., R. Venkataraman, for the alleged commission of the offences under Sec. 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P. No. 1490 of 2014 under Sec. 408 Crimial P.C. to transfer the said case to the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli and to be tried along with S.T.C.No. 384 of 2013 instituted by the first respondent herein viz., C.Ashok and the said petition, after contest, was dismissed on 19.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the cheque pertaining to S.T.C. No. 259 of 2013 is bearing No. 318600, dated 15.12.2012, drawn on Andra Bank, Cantonment Branch, Tiruchirapalli for a sum of Rs. 10,80,000.00 and the cheque concerned in S.T.C. No. 389 of 2013 is bearing No.318598, dated 12.12.2012, drawn on Andra Bank, Cantonment Branch, Tiruchirapalli for a sum of Rs. 12,50,000.00 and his defence in both cases is one and the same and in the event of conclusion of the trial of any one of the cases, a different defence would may stand exposed and hence, he prayed for joint trial of both cases and the said aspect has been completely overlooked by the lower Court and erroneously dismissed the petition and hence, prayed for interference.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly, the complainant in both cases are different persons and the transaction is also different and not connected with each other and would further add that the trial of the cases in S.T.C. No. 259 of 2013 has already been commenced and P.W.1 has been filed his proof affidavit in chief, whereas in S.T.C.NO.384 of 2013 is yet to commence. It is also his submission that the transfer petition has been filed only to protract both proceedings and the lower Court has rightly taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and rightly dismissed the petition and hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision too.