Allowed

Satheesh Kumar v. Suresh Babu

Kerala HC20 Feb 2020Crl.MC/421/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case addressed the petitioner's challenge to the return of his private complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, due to alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that jurisdiction existed under Sections 178 and 181(4) Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned order, directing the Magistrate to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside the return of the private complaint is set aside; Magistrate directed to take back the files and proceed in accordance with law.

Satheesh Kumar Vs Suresh Babu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020(C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 3460/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O APPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT POTTAYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, PALAYAMPARAMBU DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.N.MANOJ SRI.K.SADANANDAN (KUNHUPIDUKKAL)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & ANOTHER:

¶11

1 SURESH BABU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O VENERI GOPALAN, KANJANI POST, PONALOR DESOM, MANALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2 ROBINSON, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ARIMBOOR THOMAS, KANJANI POST, PONALOR DESOM, MANALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3 RAJESH THAMBAN, NEAR IRINJALAKUDA VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, GRA 9, PRESENTLY IRINJALAKUDA TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

4 E.I.DEVASSY, NEAR IRINJALAKUDA CIVIL STATION, THAKKARA ARCADE, IRINJALAKUDA TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

5 STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶16

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

R5 BY SR PP -SRI HRITHWIK C S

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 20th day of February 2020

¶24

The petitioner is the defacto

¶25

complainant in a private complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Irinjalakuda, as Crl.M.P.

¶26

No.3460/2018 . His allegation is that, he had borrowed some amount from the accused and, had handed over blank signed papers to his counsel at Irinjalakuda, which were forged by them to create documents detrimental to the interest of the petitioner over the properties.

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved by the return of his complaint by the learned Magistrate stating that, the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as it does not come within the jurisdiction of the Court as defined under Section 177 and 181(4) of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved and hence

¶29

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

before this Court, the learned Counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioner relies on a number of decisions in support of his contentions that, the jurisdiction would apply before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Irinjalakuda.

¶33

He relies on Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Others [1999(8)S.C.C 686] which has been followed by this Court in Prasad v. State of Kerala [2003 (1) KLT 255]. He also relies on another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, in Manish Ratan & Others v. State of M.P. & Another [2007(1)S.C.C. 262] and also

¶34

on the decision in Y.A.Ajit v. Sofana Ajit (A.I.R. 2007 SC 3151), in support of his

¶35

contentions regarding the jurisdiction and course of action.

¶36

A plain reading of Section 178 with 178(b) and (d) of the Cr.P.C. would indicate that, going by the allegations, the private complaint would lie within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

¶37

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

Irinjalakuda.

¶40

where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in other , the case may be tried by the Court, having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 178(d)Cr.P.C. also indicates that, where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, any of the Court having jurisdiction over those local areas can entertain the complaint.

¶41

A reading of Section 181(4)Cr.P.C. also

¶42

specifies that, any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offense was committed or any part of the property which is a subject matter of offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person.

¶43

regarding which the alleged cheating and

¶44

¶45

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020

¶46

misappropriation has taken place is situated in Annamanada, which comes within the jurisdiction

¶47

of a different Court. At the same time, the civil suit was pending before the Sub Court at Irinjalakuda, and the blank signed papers handed over to the counsel was allegedly concocted at Irinjalakuda, which is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Irinjalakuda.

¶48

Under the circumstances, the Magistrate should not have returned the complaint by stating that, there is no jurisdiction for the Court to entertain the complaint. The Impugned

¶49

Order at Annexure-B, is therefore set aside and the Magistrate is directed to take back Crl.M.P.No.3460/2018 on the files of that Court

¶50

and proceed in accordance with law.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶53

SSK

¶54

Crl.MC.No.421 OF 2020