IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRRP.80/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.181/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- UMMER FAROOK,S/O.P.T. MOHAMMED, KADEEJA MAHAL,THALAKADATHUR,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ MR.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABBAS,S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED,BISMILLA MANZIL, THOTTAN PARAYIL,PUTHUPPARIYARAM,PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2528 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd August 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-6 order passed by Sessions court, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.80/2008 whereunder Annexure-4 order passed by the learned Magistrate returning the complaint to first respondent finding that Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case was set aside. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside Annexure-4 order in the light of the decisions of Apex court in M/s.Harman Electronic (P) Ltd. and another v. M/s.National Panasonic India Ltd. (AIR 2009 SC 1168) and this court in Santhosh Kumar.M.S v. K.G.Mohanan & another (2008 (3) KHC 291). 4. On hearing the learned counsel I find no CRMC 2528/09 2 reason to interfere with Annexure-6 order. First of all petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-6 order along with the final order to be passed in the case and therefore it is not for this court to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. More over, facts of the case shows that first respondent complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad. It is not a case where complainant had gone or caused to sent a notice within the jurisdiction another court where he does not reside, for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction with that court. On the other hand part of cause of action for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has taken place within the jurisdiction of that court. An offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will be completed only on refusal of the drawer of the cheque to pay the amount demanded on the refusal by the payee on dishonour of the cheque. Refusal by the drawer could only if there was a demand. First respondent who is residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad is entitled to demand the amount from his place of CRMC 2528/09 3 residence. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge as demand of notice which form one of the components of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as declared by the Apex court in Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan (1999 (3) KLT 440) Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad has jurisdiction to try the case. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Sessions Judge. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.