IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4575 of 2008() ------------------------- C.M.P.4421/08 OF S.T.NO.273/08 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH VIJAYAN, S/O.DR.N.VIJAYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, “PRASANNA”, MAVOOR ROAD, PARAYANCHERI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.P.B.SAJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. E.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SAMBASIVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, GROUND B, VIJAYA APARTMENTS, PARAYANCHERY, KUTHIRAVATTAM.P.O, CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4575 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. After taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made over the case to the court of the learned J.F.C.M-VI, Kozhikode. 2. The petitioner raised an objection against the territorial jurisdiction of the learned J.F.C.M-VI, Kozhikode to proceed with the case. The learned Magistrate, considered the objection in detail and passed the impugned order. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Whether reckoning the place of residence of the parties or the venue of the drawee bank or the collecting bank or the transaction between parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is admitted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Crl.M.C.No.4575/08 2 In these circumstances, cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be faulted. Of course, the learned counsel contends that the precise allegations relating to jurisdiction raised in the complaint do not reveal that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance on any ground except that the collecting bank is situated within its jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the fact remains that admittedly and concededly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence properly. The case has been made over to the learned J.F.C.M-VI which does not have territorial jurisdiction. It is not the law that the court to which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has made over the case under Section 192 Cr.P.C or 410 Cr.P.C should also have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on account of administrative exigencies, has jurisdictional competence to make over the case to any other Magistrate and such making over cannot be faulted on the ground that the court to which the case is made over does not Crl.M.C.No.4575/08 3 have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can, ought or need be invoked in the circumstances of this case. 4. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4575/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4575/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008