Cheque bounce complaint cannot be transferred as per convenience of accused, observes Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court in the case S Nalini Jayanthi vs M. Ramasubba Reddy observed that a complaint under Section 138 cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka observed while dismissing a transfer petition filed by an accused seeking transfer of a cheque bounce complaint.
In the present case, the bench observed that she can always seek exemption from personal appearance, the court noticed that the petitioner being a woman and a senior citizen.
The court in its order stated that if a petitioner makes an application for grant of exemption, the same should be consider favourable by the learned trial judge. It should have been compelled by the Trial Judge to the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial.
Law Provided:
The Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides the Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. The section reads as follows:
(1) Whenever it is made for appearing to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any appeal or particular case be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from that of a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of superior or equal jurisdiction which is subordinate to another High Court.
However, the single benches of Supreme Court consider the transfer petition.