Prosecuting Sitting MLA Doesn't By Itself Mean That Trial Will Be Unfair: Madras High Court Dismisses Transfer Petition

The Madras High Court, while dismissing a Transfer Petition, has held that a trial against a sitting MLA doesn't by itself mean that it will not be fair.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking transfer of a case which was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate or any other competent court registered under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan observed, "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 complaint made by the petitioner against the Magistrate and the court staff is still under inquiry, and no decision has been taken yet which would make this Court conclude that the Magistrate should not continue with the case. The power to transfer a criminal case must be used carefully and only when there is a genuine and reasonable fear that justice will not be done. That fear must be real and based on facts, not just a feeling or suspicion."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate K.G.Senthil Kumar, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate R.Singaravelan.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner had filed a private complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He alleged that the Respondent, who is a medical practitioner and also a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Villupuram Constituency, had borrowed a total sum of ₹25 Crores in March 2021 to meet election-related expenses. To discharge this liability, the Respondent is said to have issued five post-dated cheques, each for ₹50 Lakhs. When presented, one cheque was returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds" and the remaining cheques were returned with the remark "payment stopped by the drawer."

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent holds considerable political influence in the Villupuram District as a sitting MLA and District Secretary of the ruling party. It was argued that this influence could affect the fairness of the trial. It was also submitted that the trial court had permitted the withdrawal of the respondent’s discharge petition based on an advance hearing in an Application filed without giving notice to the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had made a police complaint regarding threats to his life and liberty, which is still pending.

On the other hand, the Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the Petition and submitted that the allegations are vague, exaggerated, and unsupported by any reliable material. It was argued that the status of the Respondent as a legislator does not, by itself, justify a transfer. It was pointed out that no order has been passed by the Magistrate that shows bias, and that the procedural grievances raised by the Petitioner do not constitute valid grounds for seeking a transfer. It was argued that the Petitioner is only trying to delay the proceedings and that the transfer would cause unnecessary hardship to the witnesses and parties, all of whom are based in or around Villupuram.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the submissions of the Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan, Amarinder Singh Vs. Parkash Singh Badal and others (2009), Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2016).

"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 ruled.

Stating that even the Petitioner’s grievance regarding the withdrawal of the discharge Petition, assuming it is true, is only a procedural matter that can be taken up before the same court or by filing the proper application, the Court held, "This, by itself, is not a valid reason to seek transfer of the case. Accepting such claims would open the door for parties to seek transfer of cases based on minor or disputed procedural issues."

The Court pointed out that the witnesses, and both the parties are all based in Villupuram, and there is no strong reason to shift the case to another district and transferring the case at this stage will only cause delay and inconvenience to everyone involved.

"This Court is of the view that the petitioner’s fears are based more on personal feelings rather than actual facts. The reasons given are not strong enough to justify the transfer of the case. So far, the trial court has not passed any order that has affected the petitioner’s rights or the fairness of the proceedings", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Dr. Ranganathan vs. Dr. Lakshmanan

Click here to read/ download Order