IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 89 of 2008()
1. SATHEESHKUMAR, 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. JAGATHEESHAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Tr.P.(Cri)No. 89 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The transaction
took place at Alapuzha. The cheque was issued at Alapuzha.
The cheque was presented for collection before a bank at
Pariyaram. It was presented before the drawee bank at
Alapuzha. It was dishonoured. The complainant, who resides
at Pariyaram working as E.C.G. Technician at the Pariyaram
Medical College, issued a notice of demand at his place of
residence to the accused. Payment was not made.
Thereafter, prosecution was launched before the learned
JFCM, Payyannoor.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining that
the complainant has chosen to initiate proceedings before the
Tr.P.(Cri)No. 89 of 2008 -: 2 :-
learned Magistrate at Payyannoor with the sole intention of
vexing and harassing the petitioner. The learned counsel relies
on the admitted fact that a civil suit claiming recovery of the very
same amount has been launched before the Court of the
Subordinate Judge at Alapuzha.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
decisions in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2007 (1)
KLT 68) and Santhosh Kumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT
461). The learned counsel submits that, at any rate, the mere
fact that the cheque is presented for collection before the
complainant’s bank at Payyannoor or that a notice of demand has
been issued by the counsel at Payyannoor cannot confer
jurisdiction on the court at Payyannoor to deal with the subject
matter. Even assuming that the court at Payyannur has
jurisdiction, this is an eminently fit case where transfer must be
directed to a court at Alapuzha where the civil suit has already
been launched before the court at Alapuzha.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant
submits that notwithstanding the decisions in Ahammedkutty
Haji v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68) and Santhosh
Kumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT 461), the court at
Payyannoor must be held to have jurisdiction inasmuch as it is
Tr.P.(Cri)No. 89 of 2008 -: 3 :-
not disputed that the complainant is residing at Pariyaram in
connection with his employment at the Pariyaram Medical
College for the last so many years.
5. It is not necessary to delve deeper into the question
whether the residence of the complainant at Payyannoor would
confer jurisdiction on the court at Payyannoor to deal with the
subject matter of this prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act.
I take note of the admitted circumstances that the transfer had
taken place at Alapuzha; the cheque was issued at Alapuzha; the
cheque was presented before the drawee bank at Alapuzha and
that the civil suit for the identical claim is launched before the
court at Alapuzha by the complainant. I am, in these
circumstances, satisfied that the interests of justice would be
eminently served by directing the transfer of the case to the
court of the JFMC, Ambalapuzha.
6. In the result:
(a) This petition is accordingly allowed.
(b) S.T.No.143/08 pending before the learned JFCM,
Payyannoor is transferred to the Court of the JFCM,
Ambalapuzha.
(c) The learned JFCM, Payyannoor, shall forth with
transmit the records to the court of the JFCM, Ambalapuzha.
Tr.P.(Cri)No. 89 of 2008 -: 4 :-
Such records shall be made available before that court on
16/2/09. Parties shall appear before that court without any
further notice from that court.
(d) The complainant shall be permitted to appear through
counsel and his personal presence need be insisted only if such
presence is required for making further progress in the case.
(e) The learned JFCM, Ambalapuzha, shall ensure that the
case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible – at any rate,
within a period of 60 days from 16/2/09.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
Tr.P.(Cri)No. 89 of 2008 -: 5 :-