KOCHUMON Vs. ANISH KUMAR AND STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution initiated by him under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The petitioner's complaint was returned by the learned Magistrate as per his order dated 20.01.2007. The relevant order reads as follows:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has erred grossly in directing the return of the complaint to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has not borne in mind the principles in Bhaskaran v. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan 1999 (3) K.L.T 440. In these circumstances, the decision of the learned Magistrate directing return of the complaint is unjustified. At any rate, there was sufficient averments to receive the complaint postponing detailed consideration after appearance of the accused, submits the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The counsel submits that the averments made in the complaint and the averments made in the affidavit filed under Section 145 of the N.I Act as also the statement of witnesses were certainly sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that cognizance deserves to be taken.

(3.) I have gone through the averments in the complaint and the affidavit filed under Section 145 of the N.I Act. It cannot be denied that there is specific assertion that the amount was paid and the cheque was issued at Kayamkulam within the jurisdiction of the court. There is also specific averments to show that the cheque was presented for collection by the complainant who has his permanent residence at Kayamkulam at a bank at Kayamkulam. Intimation of dishonour was served on the complainant through the bank at Kayamkulam. Demand was made by the complainant at Kayamkulam through his counsel, who was also at Kayamkulam. The decision in Bhaskaran v. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan (supra) makes it very clear that concatenation of the five events namely,