- (1.) The complainant in C.C. No. 2303 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track court No. II/Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore is the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner/complainant filed the above complaint against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, chennai and the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording sworn statement, took cognizance of the case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and transferred the case to Fast Track Court No. II, Egmore, Chennai and thereafter, summons was issued to the respondents and they entered appearance and the case was periodically adjourned. On 18.12.2014, the Fast Track Court No. II, Egmore, Chennai, passed an order returning the case records to the complainant/petitioner herein stating that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 9 SCC 129, the Court has no jurisdiction. This order is challenged in this petition.
(3.) Mr. Abdukumar Rajaratnam, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. II, Egmore, Chennai, without properly appreciating the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , the provision of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also the procedure to be followed in summons case, erred in returning the papers for presentation before the proper Court. He submitted that the cheques were drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruppur Main Branch, Tiruppur, and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 supra, the case has to be filed before the Court which has jurisdiction over the Bank which returned the cheques on the ground of insufficient funds. However, he submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly appreciating Paragraph 22 of the judgment reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 supra, erred in returning the papers and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the proceeding has gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the same Court shall retain the case. He submitted that in this case, admittedly, sworn statement of the complainant was taken by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter, cognizance was taken and after the respondents appeared and were questioned, the Magistrate has to direct the accused to cross-examine the complainant whose affidavit was already taken while taking cognizance of the case and therefore, the case has gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and therefore, the Court is competent to retain the case and there is no need to transfer the case to the other Court. In other words, he submitted that once the sworn statement was recorded while taking cognizance of a private complaint and summons was issued to the accused and accused denied the charge, the next step is to call upon the accused to cross-examine the complainant whose affidavit was already taken by treating the same as chief examination and therefore, the trial has commenced or the proceeding has gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after the accused denied the charge and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case need not be transferred. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India and others, 2014 5 SCC 590 and relied upon Paragraph 18 of the judgment and submitted that there was no necessity to recall and examine the complainant after summoning of the accused and therefore, when the accused was questioned, the case has gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence, the case need not be transferred.;