[1.0] Present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.182/2009 lodged by respondent No.2 herein, pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act").
[2.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties, it appears that the applicant has requested to quash and set aside the impugned criminal case mainly on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid complaint and/or try the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
[3.0] Shri Ahuja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 3848 by submitting that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that trial Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the Trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a Court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case and therefore, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the Trial Court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial Court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case. Therefore, it is requested not to entertain the present criminal miscellaneous application and relegate the applicant to submit an appropriate application before the learned trial Court.
[4.0] In view of the above, Shri Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application with a liberty to submit appropriate application before the concerned Court submitting that the said Court would not have any jurisdiction and as and when such an application is made, the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits and after giving an opportunity to all concerned inclusive of the original complainant.
[5.0] With this, present Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed as withdrawn. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R.
Shah, J.) *menon Top