E. GOMATHI Vs. AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This criminal application is filed by the applicant/accused no.1, who is tried vide Summary Criminal Case No. 832/2009 under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal. Before the said Court, the accused had raised the ground of territorial jurisdiction alleging that institution of complaint was wrongly done in the Court at Yavatmal with the sole purpose to harass the applicant, who is a female and would require to travel thousand of kilometres from Chennai to Yavatmal.

(3.) Ad interim relief was granted in favour of the applicant/accused by this Court. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for both the sides have submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2287/2009 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another), complaint pending before the trial Court needs to proceed in view of para 20 thereof wherein it is directed that in cases where recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, proceedings will continue at that place. It is further clarified that regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or oral statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. The learned Counsel for both the sides submit that after recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, defence witnesses are also examined. It is admitted by learned Counsel for both the sides that matter as such is at the fag end of trial since it is posted for arguments.