IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4612 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.2672/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN, AGED 51, MANGATTIL HOUSE, KOOTHALI.P.O., PERAMBRA. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. MANAGER, M/S.KERALA CHITTY FUND(REGD.) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, PAN AFRICAN PLAZA, PULIMOODU, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R2 SRI.K.JAYAPRASAD FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4612 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. ORDER This petition is to quash proceedings in C.M.P.No.2672 of 2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to the petitioner the petition is filed with delay and, notice on the application to condone the delay has been served on petitioner who appeared through counsel. Now that application is posted for hearing on 03.02.2011. According to the petitioner, even as per the averments in the complaint learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram where the complaint is filed has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averment in the complaint is that the said court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since respondent presented the cheque in its bank (collecting bank at Thiruvananthapuram) and the cheque was dishonoured. Petitioner contended that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswants Neco Ltd. (2001(2) KLT 148) “bank” referred to in Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act means the bank on which the cheque is drawn and not the bank where cheque is presented for collection and hence presentation of the cheque in the collecting bank cannot confirm jurisdiction for the court. Petitioner therefore wants all the proceedings before the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.4612/2010 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 3. I am not persuaded to think, assuming that learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint that proceedings are to be quashed. If there is lack of territorial jurisdiction the proper course is provided under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I must also bear in mind that that power can be exercised even after cognizance is taken. A Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma v. State of Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 598) has pointed out that any objection as to territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest opportunity atleast before the commencement of trial. Petitioner, if he has got a contention that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint could in the light of the Division Bench decision referred to above raise that question at the earliest opportunity before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. With the above observation this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks