IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3851 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CMP.4006/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------- C. SURENDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER SWASTHIKA BUSINESS CORPORATION 5/311 A3, ARCHANA BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM, CIVIL STATION P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN MR.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: --------------------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP, PROPRIETOR, SREELAKSHMI AGENCIES, 12B, AIKYA NAGAR, LAKSHMI NADA, KOLLAM - 691 013. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3851 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 1st December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner filed Annexure-A1 complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode against first respondent alleging that he committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure-A1 shows that complaint was filed on 13/11/2009 and learned Magistrate posted the case to 19/11/2009. On 19/11/2009 following order was passed. “Complainant represented. As per averments in para 5 this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence complaint is returned under Section 201 of Code of Criminal Procedure for presentation before proper court within ten days from today”. This petition is filed under Section 482 o Code of Criminal Procedure contending that it is specifically alleged in paragraph 5 of the complaint that accused placed orders at the business premises of the complainant and business premise is within the Crmc 3851/09 2 jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode and the bank through which the cheques were sent for collection is also within the jurisdiction of Kasaba police station, Kozhikode and hence the court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that as held by the Apex court in Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & another (1999 (7) SCC 510) a complaint is maintainable where any part of the five components of the offence under Section 138 has taken place and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate was not justified in not entertaining the complaint and returning the same. 2. When accused is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as mandated under Sub Section 1 of Section 202, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, the Magistrate is bound to postpone the issue of process against accused and to conduct inquiry under Sub Section 1 of Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate is to consider the question whether he has Crmc 3851/09 3 territorial jurisdiction to try the case at the time of inquiry under Section 202(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Hence order dated 19/11/2009 returning the complaint to the petitioner, for presentation before proper court is quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on file and conduct an enquiry as provided under Sub Section 1 of Section 202 and decide whether cognizance is to be taken or not. Registry is directed to return Annexure-A1 complaint to the petitioner for presentation before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. On such presentation of the complaint, Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the complaint and conduct an enquiry as provided under Section 202 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.