IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4318 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.1871/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------- HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (HDFC) H.D.F.C HOUSE, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-15 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR) SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE --------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR.K.K KARIPAL KALLAMPALLY HOUSE, CHEPPATHODE, KAKKARA, MATHAMANGALAM BAZAR, KANNUR 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4318 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is a corporation - H.D.F.C. It admittedly has a branch at Kannur. The transaction, it is submitted in the course of arguments before me, was at the Kannur branch of the complainant corporation. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on a perusal of the averments in the complaint took the view that the prosecution at Ernakulam is not justified in the light of the decision in Santhosh Kumar v. Mohanan [2008(3) KLT 461]. Accordingly, the complaint was returned for presentation before the proper court within a period of ten days as per the impugned order. The petitioner has come to this court. According to the petitioner, while it is true that no specific averment conferring jurisdiction on the court at Ernakulam is made in the complaint except that the collecting bank happens to be within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is entitled for a further opportunity to show how the court at Ernakulam has jurisdiction. Crl.M.C.No.4318/08 2 2. There is no averment that either in the complaint or in the affidavit filed that there is any circumstance to attract jurisdiction for the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ernakulam. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the claim for further opportunity is unjustified. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was perfectly justified in returning the complaint for presentation before the appropriate court. The challenge does not deserve to be accepted. 3. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given further time to present the complaint before the court having jurisdiction in Kannur. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the petitioner shall have time till 24/11/2008 to prefer the complaint before the appropriate court in which event it shall be reckoned as sufficient compliance of the impugned order dated 27/9/2008. 4. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4318/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4318/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008