SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioners pray for a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the application of the Petitioners dated 28 th May, 2011 before proceeding with the trial any further.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners moved an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to try the complaint filed under Section 138, Negotiable Instrucments Act (in short NI Act?). The learned Trial Court kept the application pending and ultimately vide order dated 28 th May, 2011 held that since the trial is at the fag end, this application will be decided with the main matter at the final stage. Learned counsel contends that the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided in the first instance as and when it is taken. Relying upon Hira Lal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State, 1956 AIR(All) 619 it is contended that it is open to the accused to raise objections to jurisdiction at any time when he can satisfy the Court on the evidence which has come upto that time, that the Court has no jurisdiction, and, therefore no further proceedings should be taken. Referring to Abhay Lalan Vs. Yogendra Madhavlal, 1981 CrLJ 1667 it is contended that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 are not limited. If the question involved is one of jurisdiction and the Magistrate proceeds in the matter despite there being no jurisdiction, the same amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, interference can be made by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the present petition has been filed by material concealment of facts. The Petitioners entered appearance before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the complaint case on 30 th June, 2007. Notice was framed on 30 th September, 2009. The application for return of the complaint for want of jurisdiction was filed belatedly on 28 th May, 2011 when CW-1 had already been examined. On 20 th December, 2011 when this petition first came for hearing and this Court stayed the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the complainant?s evidence was complete and the learned counsel for the Petitioners got the matter adjourned for statement of the accused persons and leading defence evidence if any. This Court in Transgeitz Enterprises & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Zutshi (Crl.M.C. 1937/2010 decided on 2 nd June, 2010) refused to entertain any such petition on the ground that the application was filed belatedly. Relying on M/s Hora Sales Agencies & Ors. Vs. M/s Quest Components (P) Ltd. (Crl.M.C. 6296-98/2005 decided on 20 th December, 2005) it is contended that the Court will not enter into an adjudication whether it has territorial jurisdiction or not and will finally decide the matter along with this objection. On a notice being framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the Petitioners are required to face trial and give their defence, if any, under Section 254 read with Section 263 Cr.P.C. In view of Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs. State of Kerala (Crl.Rev.P. 3330/2010 decided on 9 th June, 2011) it is contended that an objection to the territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised after commencement of trial. Notice having been framed, the trial had commenced and now this issue can be decided only at the final stage.