MOHAMMED ABDUL KAREEM FAISAL Vs. BALAKRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, common in all the above petitions, is the complainant in eight cheque cases, and common 1st respondent, the accused in all such cases. Challenge in the petition is against the common order passed by the magistrate in those cases upholding the challenge raised by the accused that the court before which the complaints were presented has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain them. Complainant, impeaching the correctness of that common order, has filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}.

(2.) I heard the counsel on both sides.

(3.) Cheques covered by all the complaint cases have been issued by the accused towards the licence fee for the occupation/enjoyment of a building belonging to the complainant, situate in Gourgeon in Hariyana, is the case of the complainant. Cheques on presentation for encashment were dishonoured, and statutory notice issued was not responded with payment. Complaints were presented before the magistrate court within whose jurisdiction the complainant resided. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that magistrate and the leave and licence agreement executed over the building between the accused and power of attorney of the complainant does not contain any term for payment of the amount covered by cheques at the place of residence of the complainant, was the contention raised by the accused to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate to entertain the complaints. Learned magistrate, accepting that contention passed a common order for returning the complaints for presentation to the proper court.