Dismissed

Anbu.G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2009Crl.MC/633/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal misc. case, the accused challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, in taking cognizance under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that factual disputes regarding the cause of action cannot be examined under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition challenging territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri was dismissed.

Anbu.G. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 633 of 2009(D) -----------------------------------CC.NO.56/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: -----------------------------------

¶3

ANBU G., S/O.GOPAL, AGED 45 YEARS, NO.98, SANDIAPPAN STREET, OTTERI, NEAR PINJARAPOK BUILDING, CHENNAI – 600 012, TAMIL NADU.

¶4

BY ADVS. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, MR.BABY MATHEW.

¶5

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶6

-------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2. NARENDRA KUMAR CHHAJER, AGED 42 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ANUPAM FINLEASE (INDIA)LTD, S.P.COMPLEX, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI – 600 079, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.M.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 43 YEARS, PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ARIPRA P.O., (VIA) ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI, R2 BY ADV. MR.M.B.PRAJITH.

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

prv.

¶12

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶13

================== Crl.M.C. No. 633 of 2009-D

¶14

==================

¶15

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2009.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.56/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, that was taken cognizance under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure I complaint filed by second respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as the complainant and the accused are not within the jurisdiction of the Court and the entire cause of action had taken place within the jurisdiction of Chennai court and therefore the complaint taken cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is to be quashed.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent were heard.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.633/2009-D

¶20

-2-

¶21

If the recitals in Annexure I complaint reveal that no part of the cause of action for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is taken place within the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, it could be said that the Court has no jurisdiction. But going by the averment in the complaint it cannot be said that the Court has no jurisdiction. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that even though it is pleaded in the complaint that cheques were handed over in Manjeri infact all the cheques were handed over at Chennai and therefore based on the factum of handing over of the cheques, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri cannot get jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Reliance was placed on Annexure II verification form where receipt of the cheques is mentioned. But that also does not specifically mention that those cheques were handed over at Chennai and not at Manjeri. Whatever it be, the question whether the cheques were really handed over at Manjeri as

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.633/2009-D

¶23

-3-

¶24

claimed by second respondent or at Chennai as claimed by the petitioner cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore based on that fact, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. If the petitioner has a case that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, he is at liberty to move a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the question of jurisdiction. If such a petition is filed, Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed.

¶25

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶26

dkr

Anbu.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anbu.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vk Issac & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Subha Vs K.Dinesh Kumar

Lizzy Babu Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

C.C.Johnson Vs M.P.George and Others