IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2651 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2008 IN CMP 4795 OF 2007 IN ST.704/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- K.P. MUHAMMED, KANCHERRY HOUSE P.O. KOLALAMBU, POOKKARATHARA, EDAPPAL, PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C. RAMESH, CHIRUKANDATHU HOUSE VATTAMKULAM, PONNANI TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a complaint filed on 25.2.2006. The petitioner had entered appearance. Trial in the case had commenced. At that stage the petitioner filed an application as C.M.P. 4795 of 2007 on 15.12.2007 to contend that the learned JFMC, Pattambi, before whom the case was pending, has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order turned down the objection and directed that trial be continued before him. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. What is the grievance? According to the petitioner no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pattambi. Both parties are residing within Ponnani Taluk. In Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008 2 these circumstances trial should be held before a Court having jurisdiction over Ponnani Taluk and not at the Court at Pattambi. The cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ponnani and the Court at Pattambi is attempted to be clothed with jurisdiction on the ground that the notice of demand was issued by a lawyer practicing there. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the dictum in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68) the Court at Pattambi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Magistrate appears to have no quarrel with the proposition that the dictum in Ahammedkutty Haji (supra) will apply. But the learned Magistrate took note of the fact that there was no prompt objection raised against the territorial jurisdiction and the trial having commenced, it is not necessary to interrupt the trial and direct transfer of the case. The learned Magistrate has rightly placed reliance on the decision in Meenakshi v. Udaya Kumar (2007 (4) KLT 620), wherein it was held that the objection to the territorial jurisdiction if Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008 3 not promptly raised need not be reckoned as significant to oust the Court of territorial jurisdiction. 4. I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed no error in having chosen to follow the dictum in Meenakshi (supra). The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken as early as on 25.2.2006. Trial had commenced also. PW1 had already been examined in chief. I find no reason whatsoever for the petitioner's inaction till 15.12.2007 to raise the objection against the territorial jurisdiction of the court. At any rate, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm