1 2025:CGHC:27600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 973 of 2024 M/s Global Tea Brokers (A Division Of Sunita Finlease Ltd.) Through Its Attorney General Hemlal Chandrakar, Registered. Office - Opp. Rajkumar College, G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. - Sarswati Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Details As Mentioned In Annexure A/1) ... Appellant. versus 1 - M/s Hillgrove Tea ( Private ) Ltd. Address- 10/1-A, Chungam, The Nilgiris - 643212 (T.N.) (Details As Mentioned In Annexure A/1) 2 - K.P. Mohammed Siddique, S/o Kadaran Hameed, Chairman Cum Managing Director, M/s Hillgrove Tea (Private) Ltd., Address - Kamathi, Shree Madurai Post, Dudalur, The Nilgiris - 643212, (T.N.) (Details As Mentioned In Annexure A/1) 3 - C.P. Zeenath, D/o K.P. Zubair, Director, M/s Hillgrove Tea (Private) Ltd., R/o 1/3709, Anugrah, Bilathikulam, Calicut- 67006 (K.L). (Details As Mentioned In Annexure A/1) ... Respondents. For Appellant : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. For Respondents : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.6266/2018 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the "NI Act"), whereby, learned Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.06.26 15:41:33 +0530 2 Magistrate has dismissed the case invoking the power under Section 256 Cr.P.C. which resulted into acquittal of the accused. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially the appellant/ complainant has filed the complaint case against the respondents on 16.10.2003 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Meanwhile, the respondents/accused filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the process of the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Writ Appeals No.1463 to 1469 of 2006 were filed by the respondents and other litigants in which the issue arose for consideration that when once the Magistrate Court at Chhattisgarh has taken cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and summons have been issued, whether the High Court at Madras has jurisdiction either to quash the complaint which has been taken cognizance by the first respondent or to transfer the same in entertaining such a writ petition. It was also observed that merely because the petitioners (therein) have drawn cheques which were dishonoured at Coonoor in Tamil Nadu that itself would not be relevant to decide or to hold that a part or cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Subsequently, considering the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law, the writ appeal has been dismissed. 3 3. Learned counsel would further submit that in a batch of similar nature of cases for which cognizance has been taken by the JMFC Raipur, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2009 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.67-69 of 20081 transferred such cases which were pending before learned JMFC, Raipur to learned JMFC, Coonoor, however, one of the case i.e. Case No.1551 of 2004 titled as Global Tea Brokers Vs. M/s. Hill Grow Tea Pvt. Ltd. & Ors was pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel would submit that learned JMFC Raipur vide order dated 06.07.2009 taking note of order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a direction to transfer such cases to learned JMFC, Coonoor (Tamil Nadu). However, in Transfer Petition(s) (Crl) No.53-55/20192 while passing the order dated 18.06.2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observation: "By orders dated 20.03.2009 and 19.04.2010, the petitions filed by the petitioner for the transfer of the very same cases, from the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, Chattisgarh to the concerned Court in Coonoor, Tamil Nadu, were ordered by this court. But unfortunately, by an administrative order, the Fast Track Court at Coonoor has directed the cases to be transferred back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur Chattisgarh. This is completely unacceptable and is an act of indiscipline." 4. Learned counsel would further submit that learned JMFC Raipur vide order dated 03.11.2018 despite the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, re-register the case and issued process/summons against the respondent/accused. Subsequently, due to covid pandemic, the case was 1 M/s. Yedakadu Tea Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & anr Vs. Global Tea Brokers 2 M/s. Thomattuchal Tea Producers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s. Global Tea Broker & anr 4 stayed by the order dated 26.05.2020 and learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.03.2022 looking to the extra ordinary situation of covid pandemic fixed the case for appearance of the accused on 14.03.2022. On the said date, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant has also approached the Supreme Court for transfer of connected bunch matters and specific transfer order has been passed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.126-129/2022 to transfer the cases to Court of learned JMFC Coonor, Tamil Nadu. He also informs that there was typographical error in the order dated 15.03.2023, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the order dated 15.03.2023 by the order dated 14.07.2023 and passed the order that "the court's order dated 15.03.2023 is ordered to be rectified to the above extent by correcting the case Number as 6266 of 2018 instead of Case No.6288 of 2018". In view of such submission, learned counsel submits that since the specific order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Magistrate, Raipur ought to have transferred the case to the Court of learned Magistrate Coonoor, Tamil Nadu and prays to set- aside the impugned order and to pass appropriate order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Though notice has been served on respondent No.2, however, no representation is made. 8. From perusal of records, it is explicit that the matter was pending consideration for transfer from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 5 Raipur to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coonoor, Tamil Nadu and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur by the order dated 06.07.2009 in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Crl) No.67-69/2008 order dated 20.03.2009, transferred the criminal complaint case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coonoor. Now vide order dated 15.03.2023 (Rectification order dated 14.07.2023) passed in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.126-129 of 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition of the appellant and has directed to transfer the matter to JMFC, Coonoor, Tamil Nadu. 9. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the view that learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 has committed error in exercising the power under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and same is hereby set-aside. 10.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur is directed to restore the case to its original file and to take suitable steps in compliance of order passed in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.126-129/2022 order dated 15.03.2023 (Rectification order dated 14.07.2023) whereby direction has been issued to transfer the case to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coonoor, Tamil Nadu. Learned JMFC, Raipur shall pass the transfer order of the original case within outer limit of 2 weeks from the date of communication/receipt of this order. 11.It is also expected that after transfer of the case, the transferee Court shall make an earnest endeavor to proceed in the matter and take suitable steps for securing presence of the accused in accordance with law. 6 12.The appellant is also at liberty to take suitable steps for securing presence of the accused persons before the transferee Court in accordance with law. 13.With the aforesaid observation, the acquittal appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay