IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.09.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA Crl.O.P.No.9044/2005 & Crl.MP.No.3255/2005 P.S.Sridhar .. Petitioner/A3 -Vs- Corporate Media Men Advertising Pvt.Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.K.Vijay Sekar Old No.16, Thirumurthy nagar Main Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent * * * Prayer : Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings in CC.No.24969/2004 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai @ Egmore. * * * For Petitioner : Mr.John Sathyan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi ORDER
The petitioner who has been arrayed as A3 out of 3 accused and facing trial for the alleged offence under sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 read with 34 IPC has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings pending in CC.No.24969/2004 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2.Mr.John Sathyan, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the main contention to the effect of questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, to deal with the case as the entire case transaction said to have taken place only at Bangalore, Karnataka State It is contended that even as per the allegations contained in the complaint it was specifically mentioned that the complainant has entrusted the entire administration of the Bangalore branch to A1 and thereafter, A1 has engaged the other accused, viz., A2 and A3 with the consent of the complainant. Therefore, it is contended that the entire transaction and the alleged offence said to have been committed only at Bangalore which comes well within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court and not within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also having number of other documents to substantiate his version to the effect that the entire offence alleged to have been committed only at Bangalore branch and as such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner before the Chennai Court is liable to be quashed as the Chennai Court is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the defacto complainant/respondent herein.
3.Per contra, Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant contended that the complaint is very much maintainable before the Chennai Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even as per the complaint, it was specifically stated that the complainant company is having its Registered office only at Chennai. It is further submitted that in the complaint itself it was specifically mentioned that only the administration of the branch office at Bangalore was entrusted to A1 and he in turn, engaged A2 and A3. Learned counsel would further submit that even in the complaint, it is stated that A1 was summoned to the registered office at Chennai and enquired about the allegations of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and on such allegations, A1 admitted his guilt through the communications dated 12.06.2001 and 19.03.2002. It is submitted that those documents would reveal that the Chennai Court is having jurisdiction more particularly, it is the duty of A1 to submit the accounts and other business affairs about the company only to the complainant’s registered office at Chennai and the entire administration have to be routed through only from the registered office at Chennai and A1 cannot act independently without prior permission and consent of the registered office situated at Chennai. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the complaint was preferred before the Chennai Court and the offence is also said to have been committed well within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Court.
4.The learned counsel would place reliance on the provision under Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. to contend that a case for the offence of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or in part of the property which is the subject of the offence received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for. The learned counsel for the respondent in support if this contention placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ASIT BHATTCHARJEE Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD OJHA AND OTHERS reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.3181 to the proposition that the fact of major part of the offence taking place in any other state is immaterial if the accounts and other business affairs to be reported to the main office which is situated in a particular State.
5.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint and other materials available on record.
6.It is seen from the perusal of the impguned complaint that the respondent/complaint is having its registered office at Chennai, though the accused 1 to 3 are the residents of Bangalore. It is pertinent to be noted that in the complaint at paragraph 4, it is clearly stated that the complainant company entrusted the entire administration of their Bangalore branch office to A1 and A1, in turn, engaged other accused, viz., A2 and A3 for assisting A1 in the business affairs of the Branch office at Bangalore. The yet another important factor to be borne in mind is as per the complaint, it is seen that A1 is liable to submit his accounts in respect of the Branch office at Bangalore to the complainant’s registered office at Chennai and added to that, there is a specific mention to the effect that A1 was summoned to Chennai and A1 has admitted his guilt by submitting written communications dated 12.06.2001 and 19.03.2002. Therefore, there are enough and sufficient materials available on record, viz., in the impugned compalint itself, to establish that the complainant has preferred the complaint before the competent Court of jurisdiction as the cause of action arose even within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Court, though admittedly, certain part of cause of action took place at Bangalore, Karnataka State.
7. It is pertinent to be noted that the learned counsel for the respondent rightly placed reliance on the provision under Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. which reads hereunder :
“181. Place of trial in case of certain offences –
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.”
From the reading of the above said provision which is very clear that in respect of any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner has been implicated for the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust apart from other offences and as such the provision under Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case.
8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent the Hon’ble Apex Court in ASIT BHATTCHARJEE Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD OJHA AND OTHERS reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.3181 has held as follows:-
“22…. The fact that major part of the offences took place outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not in dispute. But, even if a part of the offence committed by the respondents related to the appellant company was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the High Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter. …..
…
28. Fraudulent representation being one of the essential ingredients in respect of commission of an offence under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code, a place where such fraudulent misrepresentation has been made would, thus, give rise to a cause of action for prosecuting the accused. Similarly, having regard to the ingredients of an offence under S.406 where the entrustments were made as also the situs where the offence was completed in the sense that the amount entrusted had not been accounted for by the agent to the principal will also have a nexus so as to enable to the Court concerned to exercise its jurisdiction of taking cognizance.”
9. This Court is of the considered view that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the complainant company entrusted the entire administration of their Bangalore branch office to A-1 and A-1, in turn, engaged the other accused, viz., A-2 and A-3, and it is seen that A-1 has liable to submit his accounts in respect of the branch office at Bangalore to the complainant’s registered office at Chennai and as a matter of fact, as already pointed out A-1 summoned to Chennai and he has admitted his guilt by submitting written communication dated 12.06.2001 and 19.03.2002 and as such it is crystal clear that part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Court.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no ground made out for quashing the proceedings and accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.Considering the admitted fact that the petitioner who has been arrayed as A3 is the resident of Bangalore and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be very difficult for him to appear for each and every hearing at Chennai, this Court is constrained to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required and he should be regularly represented by his counsel before the trial Court. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has already issued Non-bailable Warrant and the same is pending as on date, it is open to the petitioner to file a petition to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to consider the said petition liberally and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
12. Considering the fact that the case itself relates to the year 2004, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible.
ap/gg
To
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Egmore,
Chennai