IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 95 of 2010() ---------------------------- CC.183/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, SULTHANBATHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED:- --------------------------------------- K.K. JOSEPH, S/O. KURIAKOSE, KOONAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SASIMALA.P.O, KURIMPANMOOLA, PULPALLY, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. MR. T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.P. JOSEPH, S/0. PAILY, VATTAKKUNNEL HOUSE, VELIYAMBAM.P.O, MARAPPAN MOOLA, PULPALLY, SULTHAN BATHERY 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. MATHEW KURIAKOSE FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 95 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner challenges the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery framing charge against him for offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that even going by the averments in the complaint, the entire transaction took place at Kudaku within the State of Karnataka and therefore, Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. I cannot agree. Going by the averments in the complaint, it is specifically averred that the cheque was handed over at a place within the limits of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery. Whether the said averment is true or not, it is Crl.R.P. No. 95/2010 : 2 : sufficient to clothe the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery with jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Since the court below has framed the charge against the petitioner, the only course now open to him is to face the trial. Of course, if a question of identity does not arise, he can apply for personal exemption before the Magistrate. I see no ground to interfere with the order framing charge. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 95/2010 : 3 :