IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4915 of 2008() --------------------------------------- (C.C.NO.1068/07 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR) PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ M.MUBARAK, S/O.MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER,AGED 46 YEARS, KOLLANGODU, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING NEAR NATTIKA JUMA MASJID, NATTIKA BEACH. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): STATE: -------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4915 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungalloor. The learned Magistrate considered the question whether the court has jurisdiction. The averments in the complaint as also the averments in the affidavit filed only show that the court at Kodungalloor has territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the cheque was presented for collection by the complainant at Kodungalloor. That circumstances, it has now been clearly held and it is trite after the decision in Santhoshkumar.M.S v. K.G.Mohanan and another [2008(3) KLT 461], is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court at Kodungalloor to deal with the matter. Accordingly the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed return of the complaint and presentation of the same before the proper court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that until the decision in Santhoshkumar.M.S v. K.G.Mohanan and another was rendered, it was assumed that the courts at the place where the cheque was presented for collection had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. That is why further and Crl.M.C. No.4915 of 2008 2 relevant averments explaining the jurisdiction of the court at Kodungalloor were not incorporated in the complaint. Arguments were advanced on this aspect. But the court below did not accept the same and by the impugned order directed return of the complaint for presentation before the proper court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity afresh to substantiate his contention that the court at Kodungalloor has jurisdiction. Admittedly even now - even after the question was specifically raised for consideration, no further affidavit has been filed to explain how the court at Kodungalloor has jurisdiction in the matter. I am not, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled for any further opportunity. 4. The petitioner has been directed to take back the complaint for presentation before the proper court. I am satisfied that there can be a direction that if the petitioner presents the complaint before the appropriate court within a period of one month from this date, that shall be reckoned as re- presentation satisfying the requirements in the impugned order. 5. With the above observation, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-