AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised is one of territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Petitioner without and before entering appearance before that court has come to this Court to complain that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen by the respondent/complainant with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. In these circumstances initiation and continuation of the prosecution at Ottapalam is a transparent abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint deserves to be quashed. This in short is the plea.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent resists the prayer in the Crl.M.C. He contends that even if the contentions were accepted in toto, it would only give rise to a justifiable prayer for transfer the case to the court at Pattambi. At any rate the prayer to quash the proceedings is not justified at all. I totally agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent on this aspect.