IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1098 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.2072/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BALAKRISHNA MENON, S/O.KESAV MENON, 5M/44, NIT, FARIDABAD, HARIYANA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ABDULKAREEM FISAL, S/O.MOHAMMADALI HAJI, PUTHANGOTT VADAKKEVEETTIL, KAPP P.O., THELAKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,KERALA, REP.BY ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNJALANHAJI, PUTHANKOTTU VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE THELAKKAD, PATTIKKAD VIA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, MELATTUR POLICE STATION LIMIT, 679322. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1098 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.2072 of 2010 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to the petitioner, no part of the cause of action even as per Annexure-A, complaint has arisen within the local limits of jurisdiction of learned Magistrate so that complaint could be filed in that Court and cognizance could be taken of the said offence. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Assuming that learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, procedure under Sec.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) is to be followed. For that, objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction has to be raised before learned Magistrate at the earliest opportunity, at any rate before starting of trial (in this case since it is a summons case before particulars of the offence is read over to the petitioner). It is for the learned Magistrate to decide whether he has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Crl.M.C.No.1098 of 2011 -: 2 :- complaint having regard to the allegations in the complaint and other relevant circumstances if any. 3. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner is residing at Faridabad in the State of Haryana, petitioner may be permitted to plead lack of jurisdiction through counsel. Having regard to the circumstances stated above I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) In case petitioner, before trial commenced (as held in Thressiama Vs. State of Kerala (2010(4) KLT 598) raised objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction for learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna to entertain the complaint, learned Magistrate shall consider that contention and pass appropriate orders before particulars of the offence is read over to the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner is permitted to appear through counsel and plead lack of territorial jurisdiction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-