MEENAKSHI Vs. UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in S.T. No. 143/06 on the file of JFCM-II, Haripad, challenges the order dated 5.2.07 passed by the said Magistrate returning the complaint presumably under Section 201 Cr.P.C. for presenting a same before the proper court having jurisdiction within two weeks.

(2.) The above private complaint was filed against the first respondent accused alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque bearing No. 509004 drawn on the Pallickal Branch of the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- allegedly issued by the accused to discharge his liability towards a loan said to have been availed by him from the revision petitioner/complainant.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took the case on file as S.T. No. 143/2006. On receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance. The trial of the case was later on commenced. After the evidence in the case was over, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for arguments when the first respondent accused, for the first time, raised a contention that the said Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint since the place where the revision petitioner complainant is residing and the place where the cheque was presented and the place where the accused is residing are not within the local limits of the JFCM-II, Haripad. The objection regarding jurisdiction was raised on the basis that merely because the place of issuance of notice to the accused was within the local limits of the Haripad court would not clothe that court to entertain and try the case. Admittedly, the statutory notice was issued from a place within the local limits of the jurisdiction the JFCM-II, Haripad.