DHARMENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Vs. NARAYAN PRASAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 407 of Cr.P.C. for transfer of the complaint case registered as SCNIA No.133/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Shajapur (M.P.) to any other nearby situated Court.

(2.) Facts of the case are that non-applicant/respondent has filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act alleging that the cheques bearing numbers 610702 and 610703 of Rs.2.,00,000.00 each were issued by the applicant in lieu of a financial liability against the nonapplicant. The cheques were presented for encashment before the bank, but were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the applicant. The said complaint was registered as SCNIA No.133/2021 pending before the JMFC, Shajapur. The respondent is a practicing advocate at Shajapur and hence, in view of the resolution of District Bar Association Shajapur dated 27.05.20022 that no advocate enrolled in their association can be engaged in any case against the advocates and, hence, the petitioner and his counsels have also moved an application for engaging another counsel. On 25/6/2022, the learned trial Court has rejected applications of the applicant and framed the charges against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. In view of the resolution dtd. 27/5/2022 and ignoring the facts the learned Court has passed the order dtd. 25/6/2022 which affects the fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence, the present petition has been filed for transfer of the case to nearby Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resolution passed by District Bar Association, Shajapur as well as the order of learned trial Court dtd. 25/6/2022 are in violation of general rule of law 'right to defend' which is available to the applicant/accused as guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The prayer of the petitioner was very limited to adjourn the case only for a short period and in view of the resolution, the advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner have withdrawn their vakalatnama. The learned trial Court has erred in passing the order while there were no advocate on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was under apprehension that as the respondent is also an advocate and due to the resolution of Bar, no advocate will appear in his case. It is further submitted that in case the trial is commence in absence of the Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner will suffer irreparable losses and unlawful hardships. Hence, prays for transfer of the case to the adjacent place/Court.