B S SUNDARESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011, whereby the Sub-Inspector of police, Sanjayanagar Police Station, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to file the complaint in the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. The petitioner contends that one N.J.Nagaraju, S/o Jayaramaiah, residing at No.41, Telecom Employees Layout, Bhogadi, Mysore had agreed to sell immovable property bearing Sy.No.138/C measuring 1 acre 8 guntas situated at Kadugodi Village, Channasandra Road, Bangalore in his favour as also in favour of Sukanya Murthy and her brother Sridhar and received a sum of Rs 2.00 crores from them towards the sale consideration. Since the price of the land has increased, he demanded additional amount for sale of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner and the other agreement, holders requested him to refund the advance amount. In response to their request, N.J.Nagaraju issued two cheques both dated 17.8.2011 for Rs 1.28 Crores and Rs 20 lakhs respectively in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, he has issued cheques in favour of the other agreement holders. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Therefore, they have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Competent Court at Bangalore. Even though summons was served on N.J.Nagaraju, he has not entered appearance in the said cases. Therefore, the Court issued non-bailable warrant against him. It is further contended that on enquiry, petitioner came to know that N.J.Nagaraju was intentionally avoiding to appear before the Court. On 28.6.2011, he filed a complaint before the 4th respondent informing him the commission of cognizable offence by N.J.Nagaraju. On receipt of the said complaint, the 4th respondent has issued the endorsement referred to above.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the complaint, the petitioner has furnished the place of residence of N.J.Nagaraju. It is further contended that the 4th respondent cannot refuse to receive the complaint on the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. He has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned endorsement.