T.G.Sadanandan vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The … on 24 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2036 of 2009()


1. T.G.SADANANDAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DIRECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. MURALEEDHARAN T.P.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :24/06/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
           CRL.M.C.No. 2036       OF 2009
            ===========================

      Dated this the 24th     day of June,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioner is the accused and second respondent

the complainant in S.T.551/2009 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg. Learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure 1 complaint

filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed

under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to

quash the complaint or in the alternative to transfer

the case to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Aluva on the ground that Judicial First Class

Magistrate-II, Hosdurg has no territorial jurisdiction

to take cognizance of the offence or to Aluva try the

case. The argument of the petitioner is that the

entire transaction has taken place within the

jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court Aluva and the fact that second respondent

presented the cheque for encashment through his bank at

Nileshwar will not enable the Magistrate to try the

case.

Crl.M.C.2036/2009 2

2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any

reason either to quash the case or to transfer the

complaint as sought for. The components constituting an

offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

include the demand for the amount covered by the

dishonoured cheque, in writing. Unless the amount is

demanded there cannot be a failure to pay it by the drawer

of the cheque. A complainant is entitled to demand the

amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, on getting

information of the dishonour, from the place where he

resides or works. When first respondent is residing

within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Hosdurg he is definitely entitled to demand the

amount covered by the dishonoured cheque in writing from

Hosdurg. When the amount was demanded in writing, by

sending a notice from a place within the jurisdiction of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, learned

Magistrate has definitely jurisdiction to take cognizance

of the case and also to try the case.

Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006