(1.) THE above criminal revision is directed against the order of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai directing the return of the complaint filed by the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 403 and 403 I.P.C. against the respondents herein, for being filed before the proper Forum on the ground that the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which falls outside the limits of C1 to C5 police station limits.
(2.) THE petitioner/complainant making various allegations against the respondents herein and alleging that such allegations constitute offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 403 and 403 I.P.C. filed a complaint against the respondents in M.P.No.2674 of 2007 before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein had admitted that the Egmore Court alone has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but however basing reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision reported in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal {2000 SCC (Cri) 47} and also the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in THE Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. A.Suguna Saraswathi {2007 (2) CTC 560} contended that the learned Magistrate has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. THE learned Magistrate by referring to the distribution of business made by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Cr.P.C. has held that since C1 to C5 police station limits alone fall within the territorial jurisdiction earmarked for that Court, returned the complaint for being presented before the proper Forum. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner/complainant is before this Court.
(3.) IN the decision reported in Trisuns Chemical INdustry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal {2000 SCC (Cri) 47} the Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraphs 14 & 15 has observed as under: