IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2008() --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MR. THOMAS GEORGE, PANASSERRY HOUSE, 30/926 B, TRIPPUNITHURA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1643 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner challenges Annexure-A, notice dated nil issued by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code') directing petitioner to appear before that Officer on or before 06.04.2008. This Crl. M.C was filed as early as on 10.04.2008 and when it came up for hearing on 11.04.2008 it was directed that the case be taken after vacation. Thereafter so many vacations passed by and now the matter is coming up for hearing for the first time after another vacation. It is contended by learned counsel that Annexure-A, notice is invalid since learned Magistrate at Chennai had no jurisdiction to forward the complaint to the police under Sec.202 of the Code and at any rate the Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Central being outside the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Chennai could not have conducted enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code. It is also contended that Annexure-A, notice is invalid for the reason that it bears no date. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is true that Annexure-A, notice does not bear a date CRL.M.C. No.1643 of 2008 -: 2 :- but that is of no consequence since there is a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Officer concerned on or before 06.04.2008. 3. The other argument is based on the jurisdiction under Sec.202 of the Code. In Annexure-A, notice it is stated that a M.P. has been filed by M/s.ICICI Bank, Ltd. Annanagar, Chennai against petitioner before learned Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Chennai and the learned Magistrate has forwarded the same to the Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Central for inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code. The mere observation in Annexure-A, notice that M.P. has been forwarded to the Circle Inspector does not mean that learned Magistrate has delegated the inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code to the Circle Inspector. I can understand Annexure-A, notice only as indicating that learned Magistrate has directed an investigation to be conducted by the Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Central which is permissible under Sec.202 of the Code. 4. Next argument is that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the Circle Inspector, Ernakulam Central who is stationed outside the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate to conduct enquiry. That argument arises from the expression “and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond CRL.M.C. No.1643 of 2008 -: 3 :- the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” or appearing in sub-sec.(1) of Sec.202 of the Code. That expression does not relate to the place where the police Officer to conduct investigation is stationed. On the other hand that expression only relates to the question whether an enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code is to be conducted mandatorily or not. If the accused is residing at a place beyond the place the Magistrate exercised jurisdiction inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code is to be mandatorily conducted while in other case it is only optional. Learned counsel has not pointed out any other provision which restricted power of learned Magistrate to direct the Police Officer beyond his jurisdictional limits of the learned Magistrate to conduct the investigation referred to in Sec.202 of the Code. In the circumstances stated I do not find reason to interfere. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv