Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur returning the complaint relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod Vs. State of Maharastra [2014 (3) KLT 605].
2. When the application is came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharastra and another [2014 (3) KHC 847] of Bombay High Court, in which it was observed that when a cheque has been issued with a direction to present at any Bank at par, then the complaint will be maintainable within the jurisdiction of the branch which dishonoured the cheque and so the return was not proper.
3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. There is no dispute regarding the proposition now that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod Vs. State of Maharastra [2014 (3) KLT 605] the Court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated along will get jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the same decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to return the complaints to present before the proper court if evidence in the cases have not been started. It is on that basis that the present impugned order has been passed by the learned magistrate returning the complaint filed by the petitioner as that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the drawee bank was not situated within the jurisdiction of that court.
5. It is true that in the decision reported in Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharastra and another [2014 (3) KHC 847], the Bombay High Court has held that the complaint can be filed within the jurisdiction of the court where at par cheques have been dishonoured by that particular branch of the drawee bank. The case of the petitioner in this case also that it is a at par cheque given. One thing that the decision of the Bombay High Court is not as such binding on this court and it has got only a persuasive value. Further the operation of that judgment has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.).No.7251 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014. So that decision is not said to be in existence now in view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the decision which is having binding effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod Vs. State of Maharastra [2014 (3) KLT 605]. So there is no merit in the revision and no illegality has been committed by the learned magistrate and the revision lacks bonafides and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Two weeks time more from today is granted to the petitioner to re-present the complaint as the petitioner has challenged the order before this court, so as to make the complaint within time as directed by the Supreme Court in the above decision.
With the above direction and observation, the revision petition is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Issue copy of the order on usual terms to the petitioner immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN.
JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge