Allowed

M.Rajamani v. Nagarajan

Madras HC21 Aug 2013CRL RC(MD)/535/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the quashing of a Section 138 cheque complaint due to jurisdictional error. The Court dismissed the interim relief petition filed by the accused and transferred the case to Madurai for adjudication by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Previous order dismissing quash application dismissed; case remanded to Madurai forum to record arguments and dispose.

M.Rajamani Vs Nagarajan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.08.2013

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Crl.R.C.(MD) No.535 of 2013

¶4

M.Rajamani .. Petitioner/Complainant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Nagarajan ... Respondent/Accused

¶7

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, dated 06.06.2013 in C.C.NO.136 of 2009, returning the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and set aside the same.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondent : Mr.V.Thirumal

¶9

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, dated 06.06.2013 in C.C.No.136 of 2009, returning the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶12

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶13

The petitioner is the complainant. He has presented a complaint on the basis of return of cheque, for a sum of Rs.10,72,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and taking the cognizance of the case, it has taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate by way of C.C.No.136 of 2009 and the trial has been commenced and the witnesses have been examined and the arguments have been heard. At this stage, the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul has no jurisdiction to deal with the case, since the cause of action has arisen at Madurai and he directed the complainant to withdraw the complaint and present it, before the concerned jurisdictional Court at Madurai. Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-accused has also filed an application before this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court to quash the proceedings and that application has also been dismissed. He further contended that the return of complaint made by the learned Judicial Magistrate is only at late stage.

¶15

¶16

Therefore, he prayed that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul could be directed to dispose of the matter.

¶17

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is a correct one and hence, he prayed that the present Criminal Revision Petition has to be dismissed.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

¶19

On perusal of the records, it is seen that on the basis of the return of cheque, the petitioner has presented a complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Dindigul and it has been reached the stage of arguments. At this stage, the learned Judicial Magistrate has returned the complaint for want of jurisdiction and he directed the complainant to present the complaint before the appropriate forum. It appears that the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, on the basis of notice said to have been issued by the complainant. But now, considering the present position the learned Judicial Magistrate has returned the complaint, directing the complainant to present before the proper forum.

¶20

Without expressing anything, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is correct and there is no need to interfere in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the case has been transferred to Madurai and it has to be placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and in turn, he has directed to transfer the application to the Jurisdictional Court for the appropriate disposal. It appears that the case has been reached the stage of arguments. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai concerned is directed to hear the arguments of both sides and dispose the case in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on 10.09.2013 and the complainant is also directed to present a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on that day. Further the trial Court is directed to depute a clerk to hand over the entire bundle along with the index list to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai within 5 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Deputy Registrar(Admn)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Assistant Registrar

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

¶29

The Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. 2. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. +One cc to M/s.V.Thirumal, Advocate, SR.No.41468 +One cc to Mr.J.Lawrence, Advocate, SR.No.41740 ssl RL/5 c- 23/8/2013 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.535 of 2013 21.08.2013

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Rajamani v. Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajamani v. Nagarajan

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

M.Murugan Vs Directorate of Vigilance

Muthulakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sundar @ Lakshmi Kanthan Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Chandrasekaran Vs Mrs. Tamilselvi

Suresh Vs Mohamed Ali

V.Prabu Vs the Director