TULARAM PATEL Vs. SUNIL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ' NI Act ') wherein he took an express objection based on Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act stating inter alia that Ms. Neha Usendi, J. M. F. C. Raipur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence against the petitioner as she was conferred with the jurisdiction to try the cases relating to NI Act arising from Khamtarai, Abhanpur, D. D. Nagar and Aamanaka Police Stations and the cognizance of the alleged offence ought to have been taken by Ms. Namrata Norge, J. M. F. C. Raipur who has the jurisdiction to try the cases relating to NI Act arising from Pandri, Rakhi, Azad Chowk and Saraswati Nagar Police Stations. Since, the alleged offence has arisen from Police Station Pandri, therefore, Ms. Neha Usendi, J. M. F. C. Raipur could not have taken cognizance of aforesaid offence against the petitioner. The said objection was rejected by learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 14/03/2019 in view of Section 460(e) of the Cr. P. C. and further holding that since the trial is a summon trial, therefore, the petitioner/accused cannot be discharged, against which the present petitioner preferred a revision, but learned revisional Court agreed with the reasoning recorded by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 03/05/2019 which is under challenge in the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner as Ms. Neha Usendi, J. M. F. C. Raipur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner in view of the provision contained under Section 142(1)(a) of the NI Act and it is a matter which is not covered by Section 460(e) of the Cr. P. C. He further submits that cognizance of offence taken against the petitioner is also hit by virtue of Section 202(1) of the Cr. P. C. , as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submit that it is only irregularity which is covered within the meaning of Section 460(e) of the Cr. P. C. which has rightly been held by the trial Court as affirmed by the revisional Court, as such, no interference is warranted in jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.