IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 341 of 2008() ------------------------ PETITIONER: PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- MR.T.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHAMU DEEPA GOLD PALACE, OLD BUS STAND KASARAGOD VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.341 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the complainant in a private complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the order dated 11.01.08 returning the complaint for production before the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg. 2. Going by the averments in Annexure A1 complaint, the borrowal was at Kalanad in Kasaragod, the dishonour of the cheque was at Kasargod and the statutory notice was also issued from Kasaragod. Hence Annexure A1 complaint was also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod which has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. This Court called for the remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod and as per letter dated 7/02/08, it is reported that since the accused in the complaint is residing within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg and therefore enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the complaint was returned to the Crl.M.C.No.341of 2008 2 complainant for production before the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg, within the limits of which the accused resides. The action of the Magistrate in returning the complaint for production before the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg within the limits of which the accused resides is clearly illegal. The place of the residence of the accused is totally irrelevant for deciding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That does not provide a ground the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod to return the complaint for production before the Magistrate within whose limits is the place of the residence of the accused. Accordingly, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, returning the complaint is set aside and the complaint shall be re-presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod for being dealt with in accordance with law. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj