IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3611 of 2007()
1. SR.PATIENCE ,AGED 66 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. SR.EVANIYA AGED 45 YEARS,
Vs
1. K.M.ABDUL ASHARAF S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/12/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 3611 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2007
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They do not dispute the
fact that the cheque duly signed was handed over to the
complainant. But they have a contention that the cheque was
not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or
liability. The petitioners have now come to this Court with a
prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
2. What is the ground ? The short ground urged is that
the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally
enforcible debt/liability. That is a contention which the
petitioners must raise in the trial to be held. The presumption
under Section 139 Cr.P.C does also stare on the petitioners. In
these circumstances, the contention that the prosecution is liable
to be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Crl.M.C.No. 3611 of 2007 2
cannot obviously succeed. I am not adverting to details of the
contentions or any conclusions, lest it might adversely affect the
contentions to be raised by the parties before the court below.
Suffice it to say that I find absolutely no satisfactory reasons to
invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. A contention is raised that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, has no
territorial jurisdiction. The complainant has his place of residence
within the jurisdiction of Viyyur Police Station and there is no
contention before me that the learned C.J.M has no jurisdiction
over the Viyyur Police Station. The decision in Bhaskaran v.
Balan [1999 (3) K.L.T 440 (SC)] makes it clear that
concatenation of the 5 events shall constitute the offence and the
happening of any one of the 5 events shall confer jurisdiction on
the court. Payment is to be made to the complainant and the
permanent address of the complainant, there is no dispute before
me, is within the jurisdiction of Viyyur Police Station. In these
circumstances, the contention that the learned C.J.M has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is also found to
be without any merit.
Crl.M.C.No. 3611 of 2007 3
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I
may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not
in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all relevant
and appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate in the
course of trial.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if
unnecessary insistence on personal appearance were made by
the learned Magistrate, it would cause great hardship and loss to
the petitioners, who are nuns, having their permanent residence
at Muvattupuzha. The petitioners have already appeared and
have been enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate, it is
submitted. I fail to understand why any court must insist on
unnecessary personal appearance of the petitioners on all dates
of posting. The petitioners can apply for exemption under
Section 205 Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate
has to consider such application on merits and in accordance with
law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-