BIPIN SALUJA Vs. DAMODAR COAL AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the fate of M. Cr. C. Nos. 9422/2004, 9423/2004, 9424/2004, 9425/2004, 9426/2004, 9427/2004, 9428/2004 and 9429/2004 since common question has been involved in these cases.

(2.) NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this case. Suffice it to state that respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. This complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maihar, District Satna. The question about maintainability of petition at Maihar was raised by the petitioner. According to him, the Judicial Magistrate at Katni had territorial jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate at Maihar vide its order dated 26-10-1994 held that Maihar Court had jurisdiction. The petitioner, assailed the said order, by filing criminal revisions, before this Court. After having heard at length, this Court vide its order dated 30-9-1996, decided the bunch of criminal revisions and categorically held in Para 12 that Court at Maihar also had the territorial jurisdiction to try the offences alleged in the complaints and accordingly all the revisions were dismissed. This Court further held that the trial is pending since 1993, therefore Trial Court was directed to dispose of the trial expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of one year from the date of the order. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Thereafter, the case was being tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maihar. Later on, as it appears from the order-sheet dated 6-11-2004 of the JMFC, Maihar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna withdrew the cases from the Court of JMFC, Maihar and started trying all those cases. The action of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna calling and withdrawing the case from the Court of JMFC, Maihar is pinching to the petitioner and hence this petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') with a prayer that the action of Chief Judicial Magistrate withdrawing the case from JMFC, Maihar to its own Court, be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner raised three submissions. His first contention is that this Court vide Annexure P-1 held that territorial jurisdiction is vested in the Court at Maihar and therefore CJM, Satna is not having any territorial jurisdiction; his another contention is that the action/order of CJM, Satna withdrawing the case from the Court of JMFC, Maihar runs contrary to Section 410 of the Code. It has been lastly contended that if any complaint is made to, transfer the case then it was decided behind the back of applicant and the cases can not be transferred without hearing him.