IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 23402 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KABIRDAS, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M.K.TRADING COMPANY, 571/804, MAHKAVI G.ROAD IYYATTIL JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. M/S.ELE CHEM SYSTEMS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH.GURPREET SINGH, S.C.F. 57, GOVIND VIHAR, BALTANA, ZIRKPUR, DISTRICT MOHALI, PUNJAB. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/07, THE COURT ON 18/1/08 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c). No. 23402 OF 2007-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Does the decision of the Full Bench in Meenakshi Sathish v. Southern Petrochemical Industries (2007(1) KLT 890 (FB)) require reconsideration for the reason that it conflicts with the decision of the Supreme Court in Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006 (2) KLT 525 (SC)? This is the short question which is raked up before me again for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The same question has already been considered by me in judgment dated 12/6/07 in W.P.(c) No.17333/07 and it has been held that the said decision does not warrant any reconsideration. That decision is upheld by the Division Bench by the judgment in W.A.No.1565/07 dated 29/6/07. 3. This writ petition is filed to invoke the powers under W.P.(c). No. 23402 OF 2007-J -: 2 :- Art.226(2) of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, in taking cognizance of an alleged offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by the petitioner. The crux of the contentions of the petitioner is that the cause of action for the prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act had actually arisen at Ernakulam and no part of the cause of action had arisen outside Ernakulam to justify cognizance being taken by the learned Magistrate at Rajpura. The question is concluded by the decision of the Division Bench in Meenakshi Sathish v. Southern Petrochemical Industries (2007(1) KLT 890 (FB)). Elaborate arguments have been advanced before me to contend that the said decision is wrong and ignores the decision in Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006 (2) KLT 525 (SC). 4. I am unable to agree. The Full Bench, according to me, had considered all the relevant contentions. I am bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench. 5. The cause of action for this writ petition is not any transaction or dealings between the complainant and the accused which gave rise to the cause of action in the Sec.138 proceedings. The cause of action for this writ petition is the W.P.(c). No. 23402 OF 2007-J -: 3 :- action of the learned Magistrate in having taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. In this application for issue of a writ to quash the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate at Rajpura, the cause of action is only the taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The transactions which gave jurisdiction to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance cannot be reckoned as the cause of action in this proceeding. Thus, the cause of action in this writ petition is the action of the learned Magistrate in having taken cognizance and issued process under Sec.204 of the Cr.P.C. The said cause of action cannot be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court either wholly or in part. The contention that Art.226(2) applies and this Court can hence entertain jurisdiction cannot succeed as no part of the cause of action for this writ petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The confusion of thought stems from the erroneous assumption that the cause of action for the 138 prosecution and the cause of action for the writ proceedings are one and the same. The cause of action for the two proceedings are distinct and different, it is noted. 6. The Full Bench decision in Meenakshi Sathish in para-10 clearly holds so. I extract the relevant portion below: W.P.(c). No. 23402 OF 2007-J -: 4 :- “10. But, the cause of action which must arise in Kerala for issuing the writs of certiorari or prohibition, must relate to the commissions or omissions of an inferior court or Tribunal amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But, the point to be decided is whether we can judicially review the action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance under S.190(1)(a) read with S.200 of the Cr.P.C. of the offence alleged against the petitioner and issuing process under S.204. The entire cause of action, as far as the action of the learned Magistrate is concerned, arose in Coimbatore, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. So, even if the complainant has wrongly filed a complaint before the Coimbatore court, the action of taking cognizance and issuance of the process took place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the reliefs sought in this Writ Petition cannot be granted by this Court.” (emphasis supplied) 7. No earlier or subsequent precedent binding on this Court taking any contra view is placed before me. 8. To me, it appears that there is nothing which can W.P.(c). No. 23402 OF 2007-J -: 5 :- persuade this Court to refer the matter to a Division Bench for consideration under Sec.3 of the Kerala High Court Act. 9. This writ petition is hence dismissed applying the dictum in Meenakshi Sathish and holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge