K.V. JOY Vs. V. SANKARA NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pondicherry in C.C. No. 333 of 1991 dated 25.9.92, dismissing the prayer of the accused/Petitioners herein, to uphold the objections regarding jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismiss the complaint filled by the Respondent.

(2.) THE Respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pondicherry against the three accused, who are the Petitioners herein, along with another by name M.K. Khan, making the allegations for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 382, 323, 352, 357, 384, 406, 403, 412, 420 read with Section 34, I.P.C. On entertaining the complaint, sworn statement of the complainant, namely, the Respondent herein, was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 4.7.1991. The written complaint above referred appears to have been filed on 30.4.91. On doing such legal exercise, upon the substructum of the allegations and overt acts made by the Respondent herein against the Petitioners and another, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence under the Sections of law above referred. Accordingly, process have been issued by him to all the accused. The accused seem to have entered their appearance on the issuance of process to them through their counsel and the further proceedings of the case was adjourned from time to time for want of appearance of the accused and consequently it reached the stage of issue of non -bailable warrants against them. However, at the directions given by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 775 of 1992 dated 23.1.1992, the non -bailable warrants issued against these Petitioners were recalled. Thereafter, it appears a petition on behalf of the accused/Petitioners A. 1 to A. 3 herein, was filed raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction as above referred. The said objection was resisted by the Respondent by filing counter objection.

(3.) IN the counter objections the Respondent/complainant has stated that since the entire sequence of facts had happened within Pondicherry limits and particularly in Muthialpet Circle by the accused, the present complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure originates from the fact that the accused illegally deprived the complainant at Pondicherry to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - in cash and cheque for Rs. 4,50,000 received at Pondicherry and handed over to the accused at Muthialpet Police Station in the presence of Muthialpet Circle Inspector. By raising the said ground, the preliminary objection was resisted by and on behalf of the Respondent.