In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that an accused in a cheque dishonour case cannot seek the transfer of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment was delivered on June 24, 2024, by a vacation bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal.
The case, titled “KASTHURIPANDIAN S VS. RBL BANK LIMITED” (Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 515/2024), came before the apex court as a transfer petition filed by the accused, Kasthuripandian S, against RBL Bank Limited.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Kasthuripandian S, had approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This section deals with the offence of dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds in the account. The details of the original complaint and the lower court proceedings were not elaborated in the available court order.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue before the court was whether an accused in a cheque dishonour case has the right to seek the transfer of the complaint to another court. This question touches upon the broader issues of jurisdiction and the rights of the accused in such cases.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The Supreme Court, in its concise yet impactful order, categorically stated:
“At the instance of the accused, we cannot issue order of transfer of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”
This observation clearly establishes that the accused does not have the right to seek a transfer of the case in cheque dishonour offences. The court’s decision upholds the principle that the choice of forum for such complaints typically lies with the complainant, and the accused cannot arbitrarily seek a change of venue.
However, the court did provide a recourse for the petitioner, noting:
“The petitioner can always apply for grant of exemption from personal appearance to the concerned Court.”
This suggestion indicates that while the court was not inclined to transfer the case, it recognized the potential hardships an accused might face in attending court proceedings. The option to seek exemption from personal appearance remains available to the accused, which can be pursued in the court where the complaint is filed.
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition. The bench also disposed of the pending application, which was likely the IA No.124874/2024 for ex-parte stay mentioned in the court order.
Also Read
Legal Representation:
The petitioner, Kasthuripandian S, was represented by Advocate-on-Record Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., along with advocates Ms. Abreeda Banu and Ms. Anna Oommen. The order does not mention any representation for the respondent, RBL Bank Limited.
