IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 30 of 2009() --------------------------- CC.984/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- V.K.MOHAMMED, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 61 YEARS, VETTIKKANDAN HOUSE, VALIYORA POST, VIA VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINOD.A. S/O.VIDYADHARAN, MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUR, KAINOOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD R2 BY ADV.MR.JIJO PAUL THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Tr.P.(Crl.).NO.30 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 6th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.984/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. This petition is filed for transfer of the case by the accused from Thrissur to a court at Malappuram. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Thrissur court and the only reason shown in Annexure-A1 complaint is that notice was sent from Thrissur and by sending a notice, court will not get jurisdiction and therefore, the case is to be transferred to Malappuram from where cheque was issued and later dishonoured and according to second respondent, petitioner refused to pay the amount. It is also submitted that petitioner is aged 60 years and therefore considering the age also, the case is to be transferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for second TPCr.30/09 2 respondent submitted that petitioner is a resident of Thrissur within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thirssur and amount covered by the dishonoured cheque was demanded from Thrissur. Therefore, at least one of the components constituting an offence under Section 138 has taken place at Thrissur. Hence court at Thrissur has jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for second respondent also submitted that considering the age of the petitioner also case cannot be transferred. 5. When second respondent is a resident of Thrissur, he is entitled to demand the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, from the place of his residence. Question of refusal to pay amount by the petitioner comes only on demand. Without a demand there cannot be a completed cause of action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, case of petitioner that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malappuram has no territorial jurisdiction and therefore the prayer to transfer cannot be accepted. When petitioner is aged only 60 years, I find it not a justifiable reason to order transfer. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.