IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 243 of 2005 ------------------------ CC.247/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- NASIRIYA, PROPRITRIEX, HYDEL DISTRIBUTION, LOGAN'S ROAD, TELLICHERRY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHINNAMMA BABY, PROPRITRIEX, TECHINO SALES CORPORATION, ESMAIL ROAD, TOIL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GEORGE BABY, KADUVANGAL HOUSE, KANNAMKODU, ADOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A.NO. 694 OF 2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 243 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 8-8-2008 SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 243 of 2005 ======================== Dated this the 8th day of August 2008 ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.247/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above C.C. It is alleged in this petition that the petitioner's husband was conducting business in distribution of pipes, taps etc. and on the basis of the orders submitted by the petitioner's husband, materials were supplied by the 2nd respondent. During the course of that transaction, four blank cheques for Rs.45,000/- each were issued and one of that cheque was dishonoured, which when presented by the power of attorney holder of the complainant in his account through South Indian Bank Ltd., Adoor Branch, and the complaint was lodged before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A1. It is also alleged in the petition that the CRMC 243/2005 -2- Magistrate court, Adoor has no territorial jurisdiction as the cheques were entrusted with Techno Corporation, Cochin and that the petitioner, who is the accused, is residing at Thalassery. It is also alleged in this petition that there is no possibility of any conviction of the accused in the above case and the case is now transferred and is pending before the Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta to drag the petitioner in that court, who is a pardanishan lady and is residing at Thalassery. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that he has no instruction from the party. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Adoor and the cheque was presented for collection through his Bank account by the power of attorney holder of the complainant at the South Indian Bank Ltd, Adoor Branch for the purpose of dragging the petitioner and to cause inconvenience to her. It is also submitted that the cheque was issued not in respect of any CRMC 243/2005 -3- liability and was given as the security and that the Magistrate's Court has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner without jurisdiction. No sanction has also been obtained by the power of attorney holder to lodge the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint is defective and is liable to be dismissed. Thus there is dispute regarding genuineness of the cheque and the territorial jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the case as revealed from the allegations in the petition. Those disputes regarding the facts of the case can only be considered by the trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties on those aspects. This Court cannot enter a finding of those disputed facts by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in this petition and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C.is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.