Recently, The Karnataka High Court rejected the request of an elderly woman, who is facing charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("NI Act"), to move her case from one court to another.

The order was issued by a Single Judge Bench presided by Justice K Natarajan.

The bench passed the order in a petition of accused-Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi, who sought transfer of her case from Sagara to Vijayapura.

The situation arose when the respondent lodged complaints under Section 200 of the CrPC against the petitioner for an offense falling under Section 138 of the NI Act. While this complaint was under consideration before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC in Sagara, the petitioner submitted an application for the case to be transferred.

She argued that attending the Sagara court, which was 400 kilometers away, would be nearly impossible due to her commitments. She's employed on a contract basis at a school in Vijayapura and also responsible for caring for her husband, who is seriously ill and unable to walk.

On the Contrary, the Respondent opposed the petition, asserting that since the complaints were filed in Sagara, the petitioner should stand trial in the Sagara court. Additionally, he argued that it would be inconvenient for him to travel to Vijayapura to attend the case.

After hearing an arguement from both the sides, Justice Natarajan said that it was not necessary for the accused to attend the court on every date of hearing.

'' 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.”'

 “...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.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Advocate Yashas S Dikshit represented the petitioner, while Advocate CA Sugoor appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi v. Mohan Naik

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