IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4356 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ( C.C. NO. 560/2007 PENDING BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT-II, KOCHI) ........... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SINDHU PRASAD, KUNNAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT). RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HDFC BANK LTD.,MATHER SQUARE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-18, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.SUMITH PRASAD. 2. STATE, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NOS. 4358/2008 & 4359/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4356, 4358 and 4359 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in three prosecutions all under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all initiated by the same complainant. Cognizance was taken in 2007. The petitioner has entered appearance through counsel before the learned Magistrate. She has not appeared personally so far. The prosecution is pending before the learned J.F.C.M-II, Kochi. It is submitted that coercive processes have already been issued to procure the presence of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has come to this court with the grievance that the learned J.F.C.M-II, Kochi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question. The counsel relies on the decision in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 68]. 3. I have been taken through the averments in the complaint. It is true that the relevant averment regarding conferment of jurisdiction is raised in paragraph 5 and that only Crl.M.C.Nos.4356 & conn.cases 2 shows that the notice of demand was issued within the jurisdiction of the learned J.F.C.M-II, Kochi. Going strictly by the decision in Ahammedkutty Haji (Supra), it can certainly be held that the court within the jurisdiction of which the counsel has issued notice of demand on behalf of the complainant, does not have territorial jurisdiction. 4. But the want of territorial jurisdiction is certainly not an aspect which goes to the root of the matter. I cannot afford to ignore the fact that the cases filed before the court at Ernakulam are being transferred to the court at Kochi because of the heavy pendency of the 138 prosecutions before the courts at Ernakulam. Even if the cases are filed before the court at Ernakulam, the cases are now bound to be made over to the court at Kochi. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that at any rate there is no reason to justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct return of the complaints or transfer of the cases to any other court. It is true that such course is followed in Ahammedkutty Haji (Supra). But in the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the meager distance Crl.M.C.Nos.4356 & conn.cases 3 between the two courts and the inevitable reality that even if the cases were filed before the court at Ernakulam, that may entail transfer back to the court at Kochi, I am not persuaded to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. It is easy to read between the lines and see that this is nothing but an attempt to further protract the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to the advantage of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16]. It is for the petitioner to seek advantage of such decision before the learned Magistrate and I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate will not consider such prayer on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 6. With the above observations, these petitions are dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.Nos.4356 & conn.cases 4 Crl.M.C.Nos.4356 & conn.cases 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008