LAWS(KER)-2001-9-44

C KRISHNAKUMAR MENON Vs. NEOTERIC INFORMATIQUE PVT LTD

Decided On September 20, 2001
C.KRISHNAKUMAR MENON Appellant
V/S
NEOTERIC INFORMATIQUE PVT.LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law regarding jurisdiction of this Court was referred to the Division Bench by a Learned Single Judge (Justice N. Krishnan Nair) after noticing contrary views expressed by this Court in Sreethara Kamath v. Jawala Prasad Guptha ( 1970 KLT 45 ) and Chellappan v. Chandulal ( 1980 KLT 411 ) on one side and J.C. Augustine v. Omprakash Nanakram ( 2001 (2) KLT 638 = 2001 (2) KLJ 57 ) on the other side. The common question arising for consideration in these cases is whether this Court can quash a criminal complaint pending in a court outside the Kerala State in a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) As far as the facts of these cases are concerned, petitioner is the partner of a firm named "Online Instruments" functioning in Kochi. Various complaints were filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mumbai under S.138 read with S.141 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, the firm 'Online Instruments' and some of the partners of the firm. It is the case of the petitioner that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the case as no part of the cause of action arose in the jurisdictional area of that Court. All the accused arrayed as parties are living in Kerala. It was further contended that even if the allegations in the complaint were correct, there is no case made out against the petitioner as legal requirements before filing the complaint against the petitioner were not satisfied by the respondents / complainants. It is also stated that petitioner has not signed the cheques, and no notice was received by him regarding dishonour of the cheques. He pleads total ignorance of the issuance of the cheques in question. Petitioner has also got a case that one of his partners must have taken the cheque leaves of the Company and misused it and therefore he wants quashing of the complaint so far as it is against him.

(3.) We quote the order of reference before answering the same: