The court emphasized the importance of handling related cases together to ensure consistent legal outcomes and reduce the potential for harassment of the accused.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section

138 of the N.I. Act. That case is pending before the JFMC-I, Palghat as S.T.374 of 2007. Long prior to the initiation of the said prosecution, the petitioner had filed a complaint and on the basis of that C.C.345 of 2007 is now pending before the JFMC-I, Ernakulam. In that case, C.C.345 of 2007, the allegation is that cheques, including the cheque involved in S.T.374 of 2007, were thieved by the complainant in the Section 138 prosecution. That proceedings was initiated earlier. It is subsequently that S.T. 374 of 2007 was initiated at Palghat. In the prosecution at Palghat, the petitioner has not entered appearance. But a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the case pending before the JFMC-I, Palghat may be transferred to the JFMC-I, Ernakulam, where the other case is pending. The cases are in the nature of allegation and counter allegation in respect of the same cheque and there is every reason why the same judicial mind must try the two cases and come to appropriate decision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case before the Court at Palghat had been filed with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. He presses into service the undisputed fact that another prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has admittedly been launched at Ernakulam and the same is pending before the JFMC-III, Ernakulam as C.C.168 of 2007. The learned counsel points out that the very same complainant is running from court to court with the only intention of harassing the petitioner. It is not explained satisfactorily as to why such prosecutions have been filed before different courts. At any rate, in as much as the respondent/complainant is already appearing before the courts at Ernakulam. His interests are not likely to suffer if a transfer is directed as prayed for by the petitioner, submits the counsel.

4. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He does not dispute the fundamental facts. He submits that the case before the Palghat Court was initiated because the respondent carries on business there, whereas his permanent place of residence is at Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that this prayer for transfer is made immediately after the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant to procure the presence of the petitioner. There is no bonafides in the prayer for transfer.

5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The facts narrated above are eloquent. I am satisfied that the prayer for transfer is absolutely justified.

6. In the result:

a) This petition is allowed.

b) S.T. 374 of 2007 pending before the JFMC-I, Palghat is transferred to the JFMC-I, Ernakulam, where C.C. 345 of 2007 is pending.

c) The learned JFMC-I, Palghat shall forthwith transmit the records in the case to the JFMC-I, Ernakulam. The parties shall appear before the JFMC-I, Ernakulam on 4.8.2008 without waiting for any further direction.

d) Expeditious disposal of both cases shall be attempted by the learned Magistrate.

(R. BASANT)

Judge tm