A. RAJAGOPAL KARUNAN Vs. SALIM RAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur, against the 1st respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court*, the learned Magistrate returned the said complaint (in C.C. No. 4664/2013), by order dated 25.9.2014, for presentation before the proper court having territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner re-presented the complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. The complaint was returned by the learned Magistrate on 25.9.2014, but the petitioner could re-present it before the proper court only on 11.11.2014. Along with the complaint, he also made an application to condone the delay of 17 days that occurred in re-presenting the complaint. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla rejected the said application to condone the delay, and accordingly returned the complaint also. Now the complainant seeks orders from this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., setting aside the said order and directing the learned Magistrate to proceed on the complaint. In the nature of the relief sought and the disposal made, I find that notice to the 1st respondent is not necessary in this proceedings. In the particular circumstances, where the petitioner has explained the short delay of 17 days in re-presenting the complaint before the proper court, I feel it appropriate that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to prosecute the matter. If his request is turned down, it will definitely be an act of injustice. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla has not in fact gone into the merits of the statements made by the petitioner explaining the delay of 17 days. Anyway, I find that the petitioner can be permitted to prosecute the matter.