Madras High Court
G.Rathinavelu vs Jayaprakasam on 22 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA
KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14369 & 14370 of 2021
G.Rathinavelu ... Petitioner
Versus
Jayaprakasam ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the case in STC.No.168 of 2020
pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court
No.I, Erode to any other Competent Court at Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manoharan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
ORDER
This petition had been filed to transfer the case in
STC.No.168 of 2020 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erode to any other Competent Court,
Salem.
2. When the case came up for hearing on 15.06.2022, the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought adjournment on the ground
that the matter can be settled. Therefore, the case was adjourned to
22.06.2022 (today). Today, when the case came up for hearing, the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the subject matter was
not settled. It is to be noted that the petition in Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
is filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the case from the file of the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode to the Court in
Salem. When the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not inclined to
proceed with the arguments, this Court had deprecated the practice of
keeping the case pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that
the case has been kept pending in part heard stage before the trial Court
and pointed out that the case is at the stage of cross examination of PW1.
The case was previously adjourned on the following days, viz.,
07.04.2021, 27.04.2021, 15.07.2021, 30.09.2021, 21.10.2021,
29.11.2021, 21.12.2021, 11.01.2021 and 22.03.2022.
4. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
invited attention of this Court to the affidavit filed along with this petition
in Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021. However, the affidavit is missing in the
Criminal Original Petition, but the affidavit was filed only in
Crl.M.P.No.14370 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021. Hence, he had
sought to dispense with the affidavit in the main petition.
5. The copy of the affidavit was furnished by the Learned
Counsel for the Respondent, in which, at Para Nos.8 & 9, the
Petitioner/Accused sought transfer of the case on medical grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant
submitted that in Para Nos.2 & 3 in the said affidavit, the Petitioner had
fairly conceded borrowal of the amount from the Complainant. When the
case is pending trial, the Petitioner had sought adjournment repeatedly.
Even when the Criminal Original Petition is filed and pending before this
Court, the Petitioner's Counsel is not ready to argue and he seeks to post
the matter before the Mediation. However, there is no necessity for
referring the matter for Mediation as pointed out by the Learned Counsel
for the Respondent that when the case is pending for cross examination of
PW1/Complainant.
7. It is seen that for each and every hearing, the Accused
had not appeared. There are provisions available in the Code of the
Criminal Procedure either under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., to dispense with
the personal appearance for single hearing or under Section 205 of
Cr.P.C., to dispense with the personal appearance except for important
proceedings like framing of charges, 313 proceedings and for judgment.
Hence, it is to be decided by the trial Judge according to the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
circumstances of each and every case. That being the case, the Petitioner
invoking the extraordinary powers of the High Court under 482 Cr.P.C.,
by filing a petition of this nature seeking transfer of the case from the Fast
Track Court specially intended for disposal of the case under 138 is found
as a dilatory tactics, which is an abuse of process of law.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is a Senior Citizen and has medical problems, for which, the
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was
aged 72 years, which is more than the age of the Petitioner. The Learned
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner is a practicing
Lawyer in Salem. Therefore, seeking transfer to Salem is found to be with
some ulterior motive. When there are provisions available for exemption
of personal appearance and the Petitioner is known to the Respondent,
therefore, there is no questioning of disputing identity. Therefore, the
Petitioner, who is well aware of the provisions, this petition is found to be
filed only to cause delay in the trial. Hence, this petition is dismissed with
directions to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
Erode, to dispose of the case in STC.No.168 of 2020 within a reasonable
period for three months from the date of receipt of a copy or from
uploading this copy of this Court on the website. The Learned Magistrate
is also advised that if the Petitioner files any petition either under Section
317 of Cr.P.C., or 205 of Cr.P.C., the same may be considered and pass
orders as per law.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
22.06.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dna
To
The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna
Crl.O.P.No.25998 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14369 & 14370 of 2021
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
