IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 380 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.642/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- RADHESHYAM GOGRAJ KEJRIWAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRATIK ENTERPRISES, A/51,SHANTI APRATMENTS, CHARKOP VILLAGE, KANDIVILIL WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. ARUN SOMAIYA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRATHAM ENTERPRISES, B/37,SUMATI NAGAR, S.V.ROAD, KANDIVILI WEST, MUMBAI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant and he had initiated a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first respondent herein. Cognizance was taken by the learned J.F.M.C. Kodungallur. Attempts to procure the presence of the first respondent did not succeed. At that stage the learned Magistrate applied his mind to the question whether the court has territorial jurisdiction to consider the matter. The court took the view that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case and by Annex.I order dt.21.10.2008 directed that the complaint be returned for presentation before the proper court. He had noted clearly that cognizance was taken and it was thereafter that the learned Magistrate entertained an impression that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It was accordingly that Annex.I order was passed directing return of the complaint for presentation before proper court. Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009 2 2. According to the petitioner, the complaint was taken back and presented before the Court at Maharashtra having territorial jurisdiction. But noting that there is no specific direction about the period within which the complaint was to be represented, the same has been returned by the court at Maharashtra. In these circumstances the petitioner prays that there may be a direction stipulating the period within which the complaint is to be represented before the proper court. The counsel relies on an unreported decision of this Court dt.15.12.2008 in Crl.R.P.4009 of 2008 as also a reported decision in Abdul Azeez Nazeem v. Radhakrishnan (2000 (2) KLT 23), to which reference is seen made in the unreported decision. 3. The respondent/accused has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent/ accused. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the interests of justice it is necessary that a time limit should be prescribed for representation of the complaint before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009 3 4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. It is clarified that the petitioner/complainant shall have time till 16.2.2009 to represent the complaint as directed in Annex.I order dt. 21.10.2008. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm