IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 52 of 2011() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO. 400/2009 OF THE NOORANADU POLICE STATION JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MAVELIKKARA) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- AJEET KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, NARIYAPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. SAJI SAMUEAL, S/O.SAMUEL, KAMUKUMPALLIL, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 693. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.52 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.400 of 2009 of Nooranadu Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.405, 406, 420, 463, 461, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1 alleging that while at Dubai, he had given signed blank cheque with an endorsement on its top “not over `.25,000/-” but, petitioner forged the cheque by adding a 'zero' after the figure `.25,000/-, filled up the cheque for `.2,10,000/- and presented it for encashment but, it was dishonoured. Based on that, respondent No.1 initiated action against petitioner. He filed a complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly Nooranad police registered case as aforesaid. Petitioner states that the allegations are false. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued the cheque for discharge of liability, the cheque was dishonoured and on a complaint preferred by petitioner at Dubai, the police arrested respondent No.1 and the matter was settled. Respondent No.1 Crl.M.C.No.52 of 2011 -: 2 :- issued another cheque for `.1,70,000/- and paid the balance amount in cash. That cheque was also dishonoured against which petitioner preferred a complaint to the Dubai police but, respondent No.1 absconded. Thereon, Dubai police isued Annexure-E, order. 2. Though various contentions are raised in this petition, at the time of argument learned counsel has confined his contention to the question whether Nooranad police had jurisdiction to investigate the case and hence learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara could not have entertained the proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that report submitted by the Nooranad police makes the situation clear. According to the learned counsel only the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta has jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Koodal police is investigating the case as the case is transferred to that station. In view of that, contention of petitioner that Nooranad police has no authority to investigate the case is not required to be examined in this proceeding. It is for the Koodal police to look into the question whether it has jurisdiction (territorial) to investigate into the matter and if it has jurisdiction (territorial) Crl.M.C.No.52 of 2011 -: 3 :- after such investigation if any offence is disclosed, to submit final report before the appropriate court as provided under law. I do not consider it necessary to issue any direction to the Koodal police as to where they should submit the final report in the case. With the observation made above, this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-