MURUGESAN Vs. T.K. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in STC No. 363 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. The respondent is the complainant in the case. "he respondent had filed the said case alleging that the petitioner had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On service of summons, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court. From the records, it is revealed that evidence on the side of the complainant was commenced and as a matter of fact sworn affidavit was filed in the place of chief examination, as provided under Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner sought to cross examine the deponent (P.W. 1) by summoning him. Though, subsequently, as ordered by this Court, P.W. 1 appeared before the Court and made himself available for cross examination, the petitioner did not choose to cross examine her. Thereafter the case was listed for questioning the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, he was also questioned.

(2.) At that stage, the petitioner filed CMP No. 6358 of 2014 before the trial Court contending that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the said case and requesting the trial Court to return the complaint to the complainant so as to be presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. II, Namakkal as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 1 LW(Cri) 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said petition by order dated 29.10.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision.

(3.) This revision has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the records carefully.