PICHA RAOWTHER Vs. ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') at the instance of the second and third accused in a complaint case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathanamthitta, is for quashing the complaint. There are three accused in the complaint of which the first accused is the son of the other two accused. The offence alleged in the complaint is S.420 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention raised here is that the court before which the complaint is pending has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

(2.) Facts alleged in the complaint, in brief, are the following: The first accused, who is residing in Bombay, sent a letter to the complainant promising to secure a visa and employment in a gulf country. After receiving the letter, the complainant visited the petitioners, who reside at Mulakkuzha in Chengannur, to ascertain about the authenticity of the letter. Petitioners, after reading their son's letter, confirmed its contents and assured about the due performance of promise made therein. Petitioners also demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for securing visa and employment in the gulf country and further demanded that one half of the amount should be paid in advance to them as the remaining half could be paid to their son when the complainant reaches Bombay. The complainant and some of his companions believed the representations made by the three accused. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the second accused at Mulakkuzha Village which is within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chengannur. The complainant and his companions proceeded to Bombay on 8-2-1988 on getting information from the first accused. The balance amount was directly paid to the first accused and his passport was also handed over to him. But none of the accused honoured their commitment or promise, nor could the complainant even see the first accused since the payment of money. Hence the complaint and the consequent proceedings.

(3.) The contention raised here is based on S.182(1) of the Code which reads thus: