IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1629 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRMP.NO. 1993/2011 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA . ................... PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ HARIKUMAR. G, VALIYAMURIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, OONNUKAL P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. H.NAJAZ, NAUSHAD MANZIL/ BHAVAN, VEDARAPLAYE CHARUMOOD P.O, VIA THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-01 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.1638 OF 2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1629 and 1638 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of June, 2011 ORDER Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the State. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with since the impugned orders are passed without notice to him and in the light of the order I propose to pass in this proceeding. Since common question is raised in these proceedings, the same are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioners filed complaints before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta as C.M.P.Nos.1993 and 1994 of 2011, respectively for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court below returned the complaints by separate orders dated 25.05.2011 for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction. Those orders are under challenge. Learned counsel contends that in both the complaints it is specifically averred that the transactions took place at the residence of petitioners (within the local limits of the jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta) and it is without noticing the same that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has returned the complaints for representation before proper Crl.M.C.Nos.1629 and 1638 of 2011 -: 2 :- Court. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Bhaskaran Vs. Balan (1999(3) KLT 440) and Philipose Vs. Chandy (2009 (4) KLT 305). 3. It is seen from the impugned orders that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not stated any reason for returning the complaints for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction. Assuming that the cheques were dishonoured at a place beyond the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had to consider after hearing petitioners whether any part of the transaction as averred in the complaints took place within the local limits of his jurisdiction and based on that averment it was possible to take cognizance of the offence. According to the learned counsel as per the decisions in Bhaskaran Vs. Balan (supra) and Philipose Vs. Chandy (supra) if any part of cause of the action including the transaction has taken place within the local limits of the jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that conferred jurisdiction to take cognizance. 4. On going through the impugned orders I am inclined to think that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not referred to the averments in the complaints. I bear in mind that even if Crl.M.C.Nos.1629 and 1638 of 2011 -: 3 :- cognizance is taken, it is open to the accused to contend about lack of territorial jurisdiction at the earliest point of time, at any rate before trial commences as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Vs. State of Kerala (2010(4) KLT 598). In view of what I have stated above, I stand persuaded to set aside the impugned order. Resultantly, the impugned orders on C.M.P.Nos.1993 and 1994 of 2011 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta are set aside and the complaints are remitted to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration and decision after hearing petitioners. Petitioners shall appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.06.2011. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-