IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 457 of 2009() ------------------------ CMP.2913/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT.LTD. HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.66, ARCOT ROAD CHENNAI -24, HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SHERIN BUILDING, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD ERNAKULAM-16 AND HAVING BRANCH AT THRIPUNITHURA REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V. JAMES. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MRS. SIBIMOL S.T., W/O. MR.MADHUSOODANAN V.N. PUTHENTHARA HOUSE, CHEMPU P.O. VAIKOM - 686608. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 457 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Branch Manager at Tripunithura at Ernakulam has initiated proceedings on behalf of the complainant, a private limited company. In the complaint in paragraph 4, the learned AC.J.M., Ernakulam, before whom the complaint was filed, is shown to have jurisdiction as follows: “4. The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in her bank account. The accused has not paid the amount as per the above cheque so far, in spite of the notice issued to her. The cheque was presented for collection by the complainant through the Vijaya Bank, Thripunithura branch which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” (emphasis supplied) Crl.M.C.No. 457 of 2009 2 An affidavit was filed along with the complaint under Section 145 of the N.I. Act asserting that the court has jurisdiction to try the offence. The accused resides outside the the jurisdiction of the court and for that reason obviously, the matter was posted for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as per the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C. 2. At that stage the complainant appears to have alertly noted that in view of the decision in Santhoshkumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT 461) further elucidation is necessary to explain jurisdiction and a further affidavit was filed, wherein it was specifically asserted that the transaction with the accused was at the Tripunithura branch of the complainant situated within the jurisdiction of the ACJM. The learned ACJM by the impugned order held that the court has no jurisdiction in the light of the decision in Santhoshkumar (supra) and directed that the complaint be returned for re-presentation before proper court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is unjustified. Enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. had to be conducted mandatorily in view of the Crl.M.C.No. 457 of 2009 3 amendment. In such enquiry the complainant had explained by additional affidavit filed how the learned ACJM has jurisdiction to try the case. It is not as though there were no averments earlier in the complaint and in the affidavit, it was specifically averred that the court has jurisdiction. But in the light of the decision referred above, which clarifies the position, the complainant become obliged to make further affidavit and stated before the court that the court is competent to entertain jurisdiction. 4. It is specifically asserted at the Bar that the complainant has no branch at Vaikom and the transaction between the parties was at Tripunithra branch of the complainant company. The cheque was drawn and issued to the Tripunithura branch and therefore the court having jurisdiction over the Tripunithura branch does certainly have jurisdiction, it is asserted. 5. The learned Magistrate appears to have taken a view against the petitioner for the sole reason that it is only in the additional affidavit that the details of the transactions are narrated. That, I am afraid, is not a sufficient reason to justify return of the complaint. The Crl.M.C.No. 457 of 2009 4 averments in the additional affidavit clearly explains the further or additional basis on which it was asserted in paragraph 4 of the complaint that the learned ACJM has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order is not justified and the same does warrant interference invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The impugned order is set aside. c) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders under Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. d) The petitioner shall re-present the complaint before the ACJM forthwith - on or before 16.2.2009. The Registry shall forthwith return the original complaint and the affidavits to the petitioner for re- presentation before the Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 457 of 2009 5