Supreme Court Declines Transfer Petition in Cheque Dishonour Case Filed by Accused
Background
On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling regarding the transfer of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA), which deals with the offence of cheque dishonour. The vacation bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed a transfer petition filed by the accused in such a case. This decision reaffirms the stance that the accused cannot seek to transfer a cheque dishonour complaint to another court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench observed that while the accused is entitled to apply for an exemption from personal appearance, they cannot file a petition to transfer the case. Justice Oka, addressing the court, remarked that he has consistently rejected similar transfer petitions in the past, emphasizing the established legal principle that the accused’s request for case transfer is not permissible under the NIA.
Justice Oka’s Stand
Justice Oka referenced his previous rulings on similar matters, indicating a clear judicial precedent against allowing such transfers at the accused’s behest. He mentioned an earlier case involving a senior citizen woman accused under Section 138, where the transfer petition was dismissed. However, he noted that the trial judge should consider applications for exemption from personal appearance favorably if submitted by the accused.
Case Details
The case in question, “Kasthuripandian S vs. RBL Bank Limited” (Diary No. – 23680/2024), involved a transfer petition filed by the accused seeking to move the case to a different jurisdiction. The bench dismissed the petition, reiterating that such transfers cannot be granted based on the accused’s request. The citation for this case is 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 427.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and consistency of the legal process in cheque dishonour cases. The decision ensures that accused individuals cannot manipulate the system by seeking transfers to different courts, potentially to delay proceedings or seek a more favorable jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that such cases should be heard and decided in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred, promoting judicial efficiency and consistency.
Key Points
- Judicial Consistency: The ruling aligns with previous decisions, reinforcing a consistent legal approach to transfer petitions under Section 138 NIA.
- Exemption from Appearance: The accused can seek exemption from personal appearance but cannot request case transfers.
- Judicial Integrity: The decision maintains the integrity of the judicial process, preventing potential abuse of transfer petitions by the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the transfer petition in “Kasthuripandian S vs. RBL Bank Limited” highlights the court’s commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring a fair and consistent judicial process in cheque dishonour cases.
Case Details: KASTHURIPANDIAN S VS. RBL BANK LIMITED DIARY NO. – 23680/2024
Citation : 2024 Law (SC) 03
Supreme Court Decision on Insurance: First Premium Payment Receipt Presumed as Policy Acceptance
