IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3583 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- ST.NO.835/2008 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- MR.R.S.SIVAPRAKASAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIVAMATHI ANIMATION SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONICS LTD., SRI.JAYALAKSHMI BUILDING, 62-G, 4TH FLOOR, NORTH BAUG ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-17. BY ADV. MR.DEEPU THANKAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.VIJAYAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, GAMAS ADVERTISING, SUGANTHI BUILDING, OPP.CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI.G.P.NAIR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU, R1 BY ADV. MR.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN, MR.MAATAYIL R.S.NAIRM SMT.REEJA HARI, SMT.V.RENJU, MR.P.ANIYAN, SMT.M.A.RAMITHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NOS. 3584/2009, 3585/2009, 3586/2009 & 3587/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C Nos.3583, 3584, 3585, 3586 and 3587 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER As common issues arise for consideration in all these petitions, they have been disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioner is the accused in various cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram for having committed offences punishable under Sections 142 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had issued a cheque drawn on Central Bank of India, Chennai Branch and when the cheque was presented for encashment through Andhra Bank, Thiruvananthapuram, the same was dishonoured for want of funds. The cheque was entrusted to the complainant at the office of the complainant at Chennai. According to the petitioner, the cheque was presented at Thiruvananthapuram and a complaint was also filed in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. It is pointed out that the court has initially returned the complaint under Section 201 of Cr.P.C on the finding that it has no jurisdiction to try the case relying on the decision reported in “Santhosh Kumar v Mohan” (2008(3) KLT 461). The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged before the court. Crl.M.C Nos.3583, 3584, 3585, 3586 and 3587 OF 2009 Page numbers 4. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the complainant before this court in W.P No.4988/2009 and with another connected cases. In W.P.(C) Nos. 4655, 4988, 4989, 4990 and 4991/2009, by order dated 04/08/2009 this court found that the action taken by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and directed as follows. “ Writ petitions are allowed. The order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III in S.T No.838/2008, 835/2008, 836/2008, 837/2008 and 839/2008 returning the complaint are quashed. Learned Magistrate is directed to receive the complaints and proceed in accordance with law” . 5. It is now stated that the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance without considering the issue regarding jurisdiction issued summons to the petitioner. Accused says that that was not in accordance with the direction issued by this court and therefore they should be quashed. 6. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had agitated the question before the court below for the court to adjudicate the jurisdiction. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move before the court below these petitions are disposed of. Crl.M.C Nos.3583, 3584, 3585, 3586 and 3587 OF 2009 Page numbers For the purpose deciding the issue regarding jurisdiction, the personal appearance of the petitioner may not be insisted. In case the petitioner files a petition agitating territorial jurisdictional issue, that petition shall be disposed of within one month of the date of filing of the petition and his personal appearance for that purpose may be dispensed with. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv