IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2651 of 2008()
1. K.P. MOHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Cognizance was taken on the basis of a complaint filed on
25.2.2006. The petitioner had entered appearance. Trial in the
case had commenced. At that stage the petitioner filed an
application as C.M.P. 4795 of 2007 on 15.12.2007 to contend
that the learned JFMC, Pattambi, before whom the case was
pending, has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject
matter. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate by
the impugned order turned down the objection and directed that
trial be continued before him.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order.
What is the grievance? According to the petitioner no part of the
cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at
Pattambi. Both parties are residing within Ponnani Taluk. In
Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008
2
these circumstances trial should be held before a Court having
jurisdiction over Ponnani Taluk and not at the Court at Pattambi. The
cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at
Ponnani and the Court at Pattambi is attempted to be clothed with
jurisdiction on the ground that the notice of demand was issued by a
lawyer practicing there. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in the light of the dictum in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of
Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68) the Court at Pattambi has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. I have gone through the impugned order. The learned
Magistrate appears to have no quarrel with the proposition that the
dictum in Ahammedkutty Haji (supra) will apply. But the learned
Magistrate took note of the fact that there was no prompt objection
raised against the territorial jurisdiction and the trial having
commenced, it is not necessary to interrupt the trial and direct transfer
of the case. The learned Magistrate has rightly placed reliance on the
decision in Meenakshi v. Udaya Kumar (2007 (4) KLT 620),
wherein it was held that the objection to the territorial jurisdiction if
Crl.M.C.No. 2651 of 2008
3
not promptly raised need not be reckoned as significant to oust the
Court of territorial jurisdiction.
4. I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed no
error in having chosen to follow the dictum in Meenakshi (supra).
The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken as early as on
25.2.2006. Trial had commenced also. PW1 had already been
examined in chief. I find no reason whatsoever for the petitioner’s
inaction till 15.12.2007 to raise the objection against the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. At any rate, I am satisfied that this is not a fit
case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner.
5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm