IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 380 of 2009()
1. RADHESHYAM GOGRAJ KEJRIWAL, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARUN SOMAIYA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRATHAM
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner is the complainant and he had initiated a
prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first
respondent herein. Cognizance was taken by the learned
J.F.M.C. Kodungallur. Attempts to procure the presence of the
first respondent did not succeed. At that stage the learned
Magistrate applied his mind to the question whether the court has
territorial jurisdiction to consider the matter. The court took the
view that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the
case and by Annex.I order dt.21.10.2008 directed that the
complaint be returned for presentation before the proper court.
He had noted clearly that cognizance was taken and it was
thereafter that the learned Magistrate entertained an impression
that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It was
accordingly that Annex.I order was passed directing return of the
complaint for presentation before proper court.
Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009
2
2. According to the petitioner, the complaint was taken back and
presented before the Court at Maharashtra having territorial
jurisdiction. But noting that there is no specific direction about the
period within which the complaint was to be represented, the same has
been returned by the court at Maharashtra. In these circumstances the
petitioner prays that there may be a direction stipulating the period
within which the complaint is to be represented before the proper
court. The counsel relies on an unreported decision of this Court
dt.15.12.2008 in Crl.R.P.4009 of 2008 as also a reported decision in
Abdul Azeez Nazeem v. Radhakrishnan (2000 (2) KLT 23), to
which reference is seen made in the unreported decision.
3. The respondent/accused has not entered appearance before
the learned Magistrate and I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that
it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the
respondent/ accused. I find merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that in the interests of justice it is necessary
that a time limit should be prescribed for representation of the
complaint before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
Crl.M.C.No. 380 of 2009
3
4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. It is clarified that the
petitioner/complainant shall have time till 16.2.2009 to represent the
complaint as directed in Annex.I order dt. 21.10.2008.
5. Hand over the order.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm