RAMESH GATTANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. petition U/s. 482 Cr. P. C. challenges the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli dated 12. 11. 1998 passed in complaint case No. 8/98 by which he dismissed the application to drop the proceedings.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) RELEVANT facts are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner and Smt. Gattani for the offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. The case of the complaint was that he sold mustard to the firm of petitioner and a cheque of Union Bank of India, Johari Bazar branch for sum of Rs. 1,13,009/- was issued towards the payment. The cheque was deposited with the Syndicate Bank, M. I. Road, Jaipur but the same was dishonoured with the remark that there was insufficient fund. The Bank returned the cheque. Then the complainant made several telephonic contacts with the petitioner and also sent a registered notice through his advocate but even then the payment was not made. It was alleged that the complainant was cheated. It was prayed that the petitioner as well as Smt. Gattani may be prosecuted for the said offences. The learned Magistrate, after making inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declined to take cognizance against Smt. Gattani but did take cognizance U/s. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Summons were issued for his appearance on 5. 8. 1998. The petitioner move an application before the learned Magistrate that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur city. Some other grounds were also taken but the learned Magistrate rejected the application vide impugned order dated 12. 11. 1998 holding that since the order taking cognizance was not challenged before any superior court, the same had become final and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to reconsider the same and that the court at Kotputli had jurisdiction to entertain the case.