Respondent Being An MLA Does Not Mean That Trial Will Be Unfair: Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer S.138 NI Act Trial

The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer a trial in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court said that merely because the respondent was an MLA, it could not be said that the trial would be unjust and that by itself would not be a reason to transfer the trial. “In the present case, there is no order passed by the learned Magistrate that shows any kind of bias or unfair conduct. The fact that the respondent is a sitting MLA does not, by itself, mean that the trial court cannot hold a fair trial,” the court said. Justice P Velmurugan held that the power to transfer a trial must be exercised carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice would not be done. The court noted that no materials had been produced to show that the Magistrate had made adverse orders or had acted in a biased manner. Thus, noting that the apprehension was vague and not based on any concrete materials, the court was not inclined to entertain the same. “In the present case, there is no material or circumstance which can justify invoking such extraordinary power of transfer. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner appears to be vague, general, and not based on any concrete incident or conduct of the Presiding Officer. There is no material to indicate that the Presiding Magistrate acted in a biased manner or failed to uphold the impartiality of judicial proceedings,” the court noted. The court was dealing with a petition filed by Dr. Ranganathan seeking to transfer the trial from Judicial Magistrate Villupuram to Judicial Magistrate Puducherry. He had alleged that the respondent, who was also a sitting MLA of the Villupuram constituency, had borrowed Rs. 25 crore in March 2021 to meet the election expenses. To discharge this liability, he had issued 5 post-dated cheques, each for Rs. 50 Lakh. When the cheques were presented, one was returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”, and the others were returned with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. Following this, a private complaint was filed under Section 138, read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner alleged that since the respondent was a sitting MLA, his influence could affect the fairness of the trial. He also submitted that the trial court had permitted the withdrawal of the respondent's discharge petition based on an advance hearing application, when no such application was found in the case bundle. He had also filed a police complaint claiming that there was a threat to his life and liberty. Hence, he prayed to transfer the trial. The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the allegations were vague, exaggerated, and unsupported by any reliable material. It was argued that the respondent being a legislator, by itself, does not justify a transfer. It was also pointed out that no orders had been passed by the Magistrate that would show bias. It was also submitted that the petition was only an attempt to prolong the trial and would cause unnecessary hardship to the witnesses and the parties, who were all based out of Villupuram. The court agreed with the submissions and noted that even if the contention of the petitioner was true, it was only a procedural matter that could be taken up in the same court by filing a necessary application. The court added that if such claims were accepted and cases were to be transferred, it would open the door for parties to seek transfer based on minor or disputed procedural issues. The court opined that the petitioner's fear was based on personal feelings rather than actual facts, and the reasons were not strong enough to justify transfer. Thus, the court was not inclined to allow the petition and dismissed the same. The court also asked the trial court to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with the law and to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, within 6 months. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. G. Senthil Kumar Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Singaravelan Senior Advocate For Mr. Aswin Kumar.A Case Title: Dr. Ranganathan v. Dr. Lakshmanan Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 280 Case No: Crl.O.P.No.17181 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Respondent Being An MLA Does Not Mean That Trial Will Be Unfair: Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer S.138 NI Act Trial

Upasana Sajeev

Tags