IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2011() 1. SUKU,S/O.JAYADEVAN,BIJU BHAVAN, Petitioner Vs 1. JAGDISH,S/O.DEVARAY NAYAK,NEHRU NAGAR, Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :15/06/2011 O R D E R [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011. ORDER
Since common questions of law and facts are raised in these proceedings the same are being disposed of jointly.
2. [CASE NUMBER] arises from Annexure-2, order dated December 21, 2010 on [CASE NUMBER] of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. That complaint was preferred by petitioner for offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, "the Act") on the strength of a cheque (allegedly) issued by the first respondent for `.5,46,103/- and drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gokarnam Branch, Andra Pradesh. Petitioner presented the cheque for collection in his bank at Krishnapuram (within the local limits of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam) and when the collecting bank sent the cheque to the drawee bank it was dishonoured for insufficiency of amount. After complying with the formalities, petitioner preferred the complaint against first respondent before learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate returned the complaint to be filed before the proper court as he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. [CASE NUMBER] is in challenge of order dated December 21, 2010 on [CASE NUMBER] of the same court. There also, facts are same. Learned Magistrate vide the impugned order returned the complaint for [CASE NUMBER] presentation before appropriate court. The said orders are under challenge in these proceedings.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the court within whose jurisdiction the collecting bank is situated has also jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Reliance is placed on the decision in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also in this regard.
5. Averments in the complaints do not say that the transaction or any part of it was at any place within the local limits of jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. The only allegation intended to confer jurisdiction on learned Judicial First Magistrate, Kayamkulam is that the collecting bank through which the cheques were presented for encashment is situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of the said court. Question is whether that would confer jurisdiction on the learned Magistrate.
6. Explaining the decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra) a learned Judge of this Court in [PRECEDENT] has held that `the bank' referred to in the [SECTION] of the Act is, cannot be the collecting bank of the complainant but, is the drawee bank. True that in [PRECEDENT] (supra), the Supreme Court relied on the decision in K.Bhaskaran [CASE NUMBER] v. Sankaran Vaidhyan & another (supra). But, as aforesaid this Court has explained the decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra). It is also relevant to note that [PRECEDENT] (supra) was decided on November 3, 2008. Thereafter, in a decision delivered on December 12, 2008 ([PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court has held that the place of issue of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action (to file a complaint under [SECTION] of the Act).
7. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision in [PRECEDENT] where again relying on the decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra) it is held that the place of issue of notice would not give rise to a cause of action. That question does not however arise in these cases since the question is only whether the place where collecting bank is situated would confer jurisdiction on the court. That question was pointedly considered by the Division Bench in [PRECEDENT] again referring to the decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra). It is held that presentation of the cheque in the bank of complainant would not give rise to any cause of action. Decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra) was confirmed. I am bound to follow that decision of Division Bench.
[CASE NUMBER]
8. In view of the above, learned Magistrate is correct in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are accordingly dismissed.
[ENTITY], Judge.