IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21543 of 2009(Q) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. M/S.ONLINE IT SHOPPE INDIA PVT.LTD. ONLINE HOUSE,39/3655,SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, SOUTH OVER BRIDGE WESTEND,VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16.REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.SHAIJU ANTONY. 2. SHAIJU ANTONY,DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, M/S.ONLINE IT SHOPPE INDIA PVT.LTD. 39/3655,SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD,SOUTH OVER BRIDGE WESTEND,VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. 3. FREDDY PAUL,DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, M/S.ONLINE IT SHOPPE INDIA PVT.LTD. 39/3655,SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD,SOUTH OVER BRIDGE WESTEND,VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S ESYSL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. A9,MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI.REP; BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI.ABHISHEK SINGH. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21543 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash Exhibit P1 complaint filed by the first respondent before Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and taken cognizance for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and for a declaration that petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted on the basis of Exhibit P1 complaint. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. (2006 (2) KLT 525) and in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra ((2000) 7 SCC 640), argued that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as the Magistrate at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the case, as no WPC 21543/09 2 part of the cause of action, to take cognizance for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has taken place within the jurisdiction of that court. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to entertain the petition by this Court. Exhibit P1 complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was taken cognizance by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The question whether the said court has jurisdiction or not is to be decided by the said court. Petitioners are entitled to challenge the cognizance taken or to quash the complaint under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Delhi High Court. Petitioners are also entitled to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court. They can also canvass the jurisdiction of the Magistrate before that court. The decisions relied on by the petitioners WPC 21543/09 3 are not applicable, as it cannot be said that no part of cause of action, to take cognizance for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has taken place within the jurisdiction of Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in the light of the allegations in Exhibit P1 complaint, which can only be accepted for the purpose of this petition. When attempt of the petitioners, as accused in a case pending before Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, is to get the complaint, pending before that court, quashed, they have to approach the Delhi High Court and not this Court. Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Delhi High Court. 30th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv