Madras High Court
M/S. Nithyasri Marketing vs Crompton Greaves Consumer ... on 11 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5590 of 2021
1.M/s. Nithyasri Marketing,
A Partnership Firm
represented by its,
Managing Partner G.SESHAN,
No.25, Vaithiyanatha lyer Street,
Shenoy Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.
2.G.SESHAN,
S/o.R.Govindan,
Partner – M/s. Nithyasri Marketing,
Plot No.80, K.V.R.Nagar,
Mahalakshmi Nagar Extension,
K.Pudur, Madurai. ... Petitioners /
Accused Nos.1& 2
Vs.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited,
Crompton House,
No.3, Dr.M.G.R.Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
Represented by its Legal & Administrative Manager,
D.Rajesh
... Respondent /
Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to
set aside the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No. I (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level) Madurai District
on a memo filed by the complainant in S.T.C.No. 70 of 2015.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.Hemant Deswani
ORDER
The accused are facing trial in S.T.C.No.70 of 2015 on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level)
Madurai District. They have filed this Criminal Original Petition
questioning the order passed by the said Magistrate, transferring the case
to Fast Track Court No. I, Egmore, Allikulam Complex, Chennai.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all
the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He would state
that the third accused, namely, the wife of the second petitioner herein
filed a petition to quash the proceedings before this Court and the same
was also allowed.
3. Earlier, the petitioners herein along with the third accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
namely, Shiyamala, wife of the second petitioner filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
8534 of 2017 for quashing the proceedings in S.T.C.No.70 of 2015. The
said Criminal Original Petition was partly allowed. The proceedings
were quashed only in respect of the third accused, namely, S.Shiyamala.
While doing so, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I (Fast Track Court
at Magisterial Level) Madurai District, was directed to complete the
proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order.
4. The contention of the learned counsel is that this direction
cannot be circumvented by transferring the case bundle to Chennai. He
would state that if this Court would take a different view, that will
amount to reviewing the direction given by this Court vide order dated
04.09.2019 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8534 of 2017.
5. The learned counsel also drew my attention to Section 322
Cr.P.C. As per the said provision, if the Magistrate comes to conclusion
that he has no jurisdiction to try the case, he can only submit a report to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate setting out the position. According to him,
the learned Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to pass an order of this
nature. He would also state the impugned order has been passed on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
strength of the memo filed by the proposed complainant. The petitioner
is having serious doubts regarding the locus standi of the proposed
complainant. For all these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
impugned order in full.
8. The respondent herein had originally filed a complaint only
before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The
cheque in question was presented for collection by the respondent in the
account maintained by them in the Corporation Bank, Chennai Caps
Branch, No.27 Whites Road, Chennai.
9. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of
Maharastra, the case bundle was returned to the complainant for re-
presentation before the concerned Court at Madurai. That is how the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
learned Judicial Magistrate No. I (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level)
Madurai District, came to entertain the complaint. The decision of the
Honorable Supreme Court was set at naught by a parlimentary
amendment by incorporating Section 142(A), on 22.09.2015. In the
same breadth, Section 142 was also amended.
Section 142(2) reads as under:
“142(2):- The offence under Section 138 shall be
inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction, -
(a) if the cheque is delivered for
collection through an account, the branch of
the bank where the payee or holder in due
course, as the case may be, maintains the
account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for
payment by the payee or holder in due course,
otherwise through an account, the branch of
the drawee bank where the drawer maintains
the account, is situated.”
Section 142-A(1) reads as under:-
“142-A(1):- Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court, all
cases transferred to the Court having jurisdiction
under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by
the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance,
2015 (6 of 2015), shall be deemed to have been
transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had
been in force at all material times.”
10. The impugned order passed by the Court below merely gives
effect to the statutory mandate set out in Section 142(A)(1) of the
Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, the impugned order does not call
for any interference. All the other contentions of the petitioners are left
open. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
11. Considering the over all facts and circumstances, the personal
appearance of the second petitioner before the Court below is dispensed
with. However, the second petitioner will have to be represented at all
times through his counsel. If the counsel also fails to appear, the benefit
of this order stand withdrawn. The second petitioner has to appear on all
those occasions, when his presence is insisted upon by the Court below.
The jurisdictional Court is directed to conclude the trial on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of six months after receipt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
case papers. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
closed.
11.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mga/csm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.Judicial Magistrate No. I (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level)
Madurai District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga/csm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10948 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5590 of 2021
11.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
