[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.176 OF 2012 Dated 16-7-2014 Between:
M.A.Rajamohan.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.176 OF 2012 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against orders dated 27-1-2012 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal whereunder complaint filed by petitioner herein against respondents 2 to 4 herein for an offence under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed on the ground that the offence has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the said court.
Now the grievance of the petitioner is that learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the complainant instead of returning it for presentation in proper court, therefore, order of the learned Magistrate is not legal.
I have perused the impugned order dated 27-1- 2012. A written complaint is filed before the court alleging that A.1 issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- towards discharge of his liability on a transaction between the parties relating to purchase of flat at Visakhapatnam and that the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation and that a legal notice was issued demanding payment of cheque amount and thereafter, complaint is filed.
Observation of the learned Magistrate is that there is neither allegation nor any statement showing particular part of offence has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of that court and for that reason, he said that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed further. As rightly pointed out by the advocate for petitioner, if the trial court feels that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it has to return the same giving liberty to the complainant to present it in appropriate court but it cannot decide the matter having held that it has no jurisdiction.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that learned Magistrate committed wrong in dismissing the complaint instead of returning it. Therefore, the same has to be corrected by exercising the revisional powers.
For these reasons, the impugned order dated 27- 1-2012 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to return the complaint to the petitioner giving him liberty to present it in appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the admission stage.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.176 OF 2012 Dated 16-7-2014