Karnataka High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea Of Woman Accused Under Section 138 of NI Act

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea of a senior citizen woman, accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("NI Act"), seeking transfer of case from one court to another.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K Natarajan passed the order in a petition of accused-Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi, who sought transfer of her case from Sagara to Vijayapura.

The issue had arisen when the respondent filed complaints under Section 200 CrPC against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. When this complaint was pending before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara, the petitioner moved an application for transfer.

Her case was that she would have to travel 400 kms to attend the Sagara court, which would be nearly impossible because she is working on contract basis at a Vijayapura school and has to look after her husband, who is suffering from serious illness and is unable to walk.

The respondent opposed the petition. He contended that as the complaints were filed in Sagara, the petitioner must face trial before the court at Sagara. Besides, he would not be able to travel to Vijayapura to attend the case.

After hearing the parties, the bench observed, “...the complaints are filed before the Court at Sagara. If the said cases are transferred to the Court of JMFC, Vijayapura, the complainant is required to appear before the Magistrate at Vijayapura, on every date of hearing and if he fails to appear, the possibility of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaints and acquitting the accused under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., is not ruled out. If the cases are transferred to Vijayapura, the complainant would be put to more trouble and irreparable loss.”

Referring to Supreme Court's judgment in S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2022 Live Law (SC) 880, Justice Natarajan said that it was not necessary for the accused to attend the court on every date of hearing.

"The Advocate for the accused can represent the case. The petitioner can seek exemption by filing application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., as the identity of the petitioner is not in dispute. The presence of the accused-petitioner before the Court is not necessary except while framing charge/recording plea or recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, if the complainant remains absent on hearing dates, there is likelihood of dismissing the complaints under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, the petitioner has not made out a case for transfer of the cases.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with a note that, “...if the petitioner files an application seeking exemption from personal appearance before the Court, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same. Whenever the presence of the petitioner is required, she has to appear before the Court.”

Advocate Yashas S Dikshit appeared for Petitioner

Advocate CA Sugoor appeared for Respondent

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 465

Case Title: Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi v. Mohan Naik

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200690 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200697 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order