IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18906 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- CC.579/2010 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.JIJI .K.BABU,S/O.P.BABU AGED 35, PROPRIETOR KADAVIL GRAPHICS,RESIDING AT KAVIL, THOLICODE P.O.,PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GANDHI RAMAN LK.,@ JEEVA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O.RAJAVATHY,DIRECT PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD, JAMAM,KANNAMOOLA, M.C.P.O.TRIVANDURM.NOW RESIDING AT VINAYA BHAVAN, T.C.55/234/08,SN NAGAR, PAPPANMCODE P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.18906 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No.579/2010 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court-III, Punalur, is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to receive the complaint which was returned by the J.F.C.M Court-III, Punalur as per Ext.P3 order dated 19.2.2010. The failure to receive the complaint by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was not on the ground that, that court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but according to the petitioner, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram refused to accept the complaint for the reason that the J.F.C.M Court-III, Punalur had already taken cognizance of the offence and hence, the complaint could not have been returned in exercise of the power under Section 201 Cr.P.C. If, that is the ground on which the complaint was refused to be accepted by the transferee Magistrate, it is clearly illegal. Section 201 Cr.P.C reads as follows:- W.P(C). No.18906 of 2010 : 2 : “201: Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case - If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,- (a) If the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; (b) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.” 2. It is true that a reading of Section 201 Cr.P.C would indicate that the Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence should return the complaint for presentation to the proper Court thereby meaning that the return should be prior to the act of taking cognizance of the offence. But even under the provision of the old code corresponding to Section 201 Cr.P.C, the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in State v. Pokker 1958 KLT 911 was that the power under Section 201 Cr.P.C can be exercised even at the post cognizance stage. The above position has W.P(C). No.18906 of 2010 : 3 : been reiterated in Abdul Azeez Nazeem v. Radhakrishnan [2002(2) KLT (23)], which was a decision rendered under the present code. Hence, the complaint could not have been refused to be accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, merely for the reason that cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the Transferor Court. But, it is made clear that this will not preclude the transferee Magistrate to refuse to entertain the complaint, if that Court also does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This writ petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb