AUGUSTINE Vs. OMPRAKASH NANAKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is the accused in C.C. 1093/1997 before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court No. 16, Ahmedabad, filed this petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above complaint and the further prosecution proceedings thereon pending against the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed the complaint C.C. 1093/97 before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Ahmedabad, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant was doing wholesale business on cloth in Ahmedabad and the petitioner (accused) had purchased cloths on credit as per two bills dated 31.7.96 for Rs. 16,016.50 and Rs. 18,827.00. The goods covered by the above bills had been delivered by the complainant to the accused, the petitioner, who was doing textile business at Ernakulam. Petitioner had taken the goods on 30 days credit and the value of the goods had to be paid within a period of 30 days. The petitioner was purchasing cloth from other firms also and had not made payments and the complainant had come to know that the petitioner had lessened his business and had sold clothes at reduced price and had not returned the amount due to the claimant and thus the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

(3.) THE main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the petitioner and as such the proceedings on the above complaint would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and hence are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the complaint was filed in a court at Ahmedabad beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and as such this petition is not maintainable before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as part of the cause of action had arisen within this State of Kerala at Kochi, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition and as such the above contention put forward by the respondent cannot be accepted. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nivinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(7) Supreme Court Cases 640. That was a case where the Supreme Court had considered whether the Bombay High Court had got jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered at Shillong. There Supreme Court held :