IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4960 of 2010() ------------------------------- CRMP.6368/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- C.RAMAN, MANAGER, SREE SAKTHI PAPER MILLS LTD., SREEKAILAS, PALIYAM ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2. RAJARAJA VERMA, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. T.K.ARAVINDAKSHAMENON, ATTIKKATTU HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD, CHENGAMANAD P.O., PIN-683 578. 3. KALEERAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. NAGAJYOTHI MATCH ENTERPRISES, ELAYASANTAM ROAD, KOVILPETTY, KOVILPETTY P.O., PIN-627 701. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO.4960/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY COF THE CRL.MP.NO.6368/2009 DATED10/07/2009 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.596 FOR RS.2,79927/- DATED 05/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY FROM THE FACTORY, CHALAKUDY TO CENTURY MATCH WORKS, KOVILPETTY. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.2007 FOR RS.1,77,203/- DATED 07/01/2007 ISSUED BY COMPANY FROM THE FACTORY, CHALAKUDY TO MUTHU MATCH WORKS, KOVILPETTY. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.2159 FOR RS.1,84,950/- DATED 28/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY FROM THE FACTORY, CHALAKUDY TO MUTHULAKSHMY MATCH WORKS, KOVILPETTY. ANNEXURE E:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2010 IN CRL.MP.NO.6368/2009 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4960 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the Manager of M/s.Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. He preferred a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Chalakudy. The complaint in short is thus: The first accused is the Manager of a depo of Maharaja Continental Traders, Shivakasi. The goods of petitioner's company used to be marketed through Maharaja Continental Traders. While so, the first accused placed orders with the company of petitioner at Chalakudy for three companies at Kovilpetti, Century Match Works, Muthu Match Works and Muthulakshmy Match Works. Those consignments were allegedly directed to another company at Kovilpetti. Based on that complaint, Chalakudy police registered Crime No.10 of 2008 for offences punishable under Secs.120(b), 408, 420 and 468 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted a final report referring the case as mistake of fact. Notice of the refer report was given to the petitioner by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy . Petitioner preferred a protest complaint (Annexure-A). learned Magistrate returned that complaint to the Crl.M.C.No.4960 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner vide Annexure-E, order dated November 18, 2010 for the reason that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel has submitted that though, part of the (alleged) incident has taken place within the local limits of Chalakudy Police Station, that has not been taken into account by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that at any rate, even if it is assumed that the Chalakudy police had no right to conduct investigation, in view of Sec.156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”), investigation conducted by the Chalakudy police could not have been challenged on the ground of lack of such power and hence learned Magistrate ought not have returned the protest complaint. The further submission is that even if learned Magistrate took cognizance on the protest complaint, and there is any irregularity in the matter, Sec.460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) protected such irregularity. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well. 2. Since the accused are not before me and it is not necessary to issue notice to them as well, it is not proper for me to enter into any final opinion on the disputed questions. But, it would appear from the first information statement that the goods Crl.M.C.No.4960 of 2010 -: 3 :- were consigned from the factory of petitioner at Chalakudy. Whether that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction for the Chalakudy police to investigate the case and for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance was not considered by the learned Magistrate as seen from Annexure-E, order. 3. Assuming that the Chalakudy police had no jurisdiction to investigate, learned Magistrate has to consider the effect of Secs.156(2) and 460(e) of the Code. If neither the Chalakudy police nor learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy had jurisdiction over the matter, proper procedure would be to return the complaint to the petitioner who shall present a complaint to the Court having jurisdiction. Such Magistrate has to act in the complaint as provided under law. If in case that complaint is forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code, such police if it finds the records of the case of Chalakkudy police is necessary may obtain copy of such records from the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy or get such records through the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided in the Code. In view of the above, Annexure-E, order is liable to be set aside. Crl.M.C.No.4960 of 2010 -: 4 :- Resultantly, subject to the observations made above, Annexure-E, order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy for fresh decision in the matter. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-