Kerala High Court
Radha N.Menon vs M/S.Neesa Leisure Limited on 27 February, 2015
Author: K. Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/15TH JYAISHTA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 653 of 2015
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 404/2015 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRTATE'S COURT (E&O), ERNAKULAM DATED
27-02-2015.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------
RADHA N.MENON, ANURADHA,
R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD,
COCHIN-682 016.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1)
SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.NELSON JOSEPH
SRI.M.D.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:
----------------------
1. M/S.NEESA LEISURE LIMITED,
CAMBAY SQUARE, PLOT NO.X-22-24,
GIDC ELECTRONIC ESTATE SECTOR-25,
OPP. HILL WOOD SCHOOL,
GANDHI NAGAR-382 044, GUJARAT.
2. MANOJ SINGAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S.NEESA LEISURE LIMITED,
CAMBAY SQUARE, PLOT NO.X-22-24,
GIDC ELECTRONIC ESTATE SECTOR-25,
OPP. HILL WOOD SCHOOL,
GANDHI NAGAR-382 044, GUJARAT.
3. KAMALENDRA JOSHI, VICE PRESIDENT -
FINANCE & ACCOUNTS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
M/S.NEESA LEISURE LIMITED,
CAMBAY SQUARE, PLOT NO.X-22-24,
GIDC ELECTRONIC ESTATE SECTOR-25,
OPP. HILL WOOD SCHOOL,
GANDHI NAGAR-382 044, GUJARAT.
4. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JUSTINE JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.653 of 2015
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P.No.404 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The above C.M.P. was filed against the respondents 1 to 3 herein, alleging the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act'). It is the case of the revision petitioner that the respondents owed an amount of `1,00,000/- to him and in discharge of the said debt, the accused issued an 'at par cheque' drawn on the Axis Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Gujarat, payable at any Branch of the said Bank. So, Crl.R.P. No.653 of 2015 -: 2 :- he presented the said cheque for encashment in the Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, of the Axis Bank and got dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient funds. Thus, the dishonour of the cheque was occurred at Axis Bank, Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam. Therefore, the court in which the complainant filed the complaint has jurisdiction to try the complaint. But the court below, without considering the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)], in its correct perspective, returned the complaint on an erroneous finding that the court below has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. This is the illegality projected in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the finding, whereby the court below returned the complaint on a finding of lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision laid down Crl.R.P. No.653 of 2015 -: 3 :- by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)].
3. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced the dishonoured memo issued by the Axis Bank, Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, where the cheque was dishonoured.
4. Going by the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)], it is seen that the Apex Court unequivocally held that the court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour of the cheque occurred has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the instant case, even though the cheque has been drawn on the Axis Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Gujarat, since it was an 'at par cheque' payable at any Branch of the Axis Bank, the cheque was presented at Ravipuram Branch of the Axis Bank and the said Branch dishonoured and returned the cheque. In short, the dishonour of the cheque occurred at Crl.R.P. No.653 of 2015 -: 4 :- Ravipuram Branch of the Axis Bank. In this view of the matter, I find that the finding whereby the court below returned the cheque is erroneous and illegal.
5. In this analysis, the court below is directed to restore the complaint on the files and proceed in accordance with law. Since notice has not been issued to the accused/respondents, their presence is not necessary to dispose of this matter in revision.
This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge