TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als. The 2nd respondent was marketing the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent. The petitioner retired from the partnership with effect from 1-4-2001. For the amounts due from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had issued certain cheques. Three of those cheques drawn on various dates in December, 2003, when presented by the 1st respondent through its Bank at Coimbatore, were dishonoured. So, after completing the usual formalities under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Coimbatore, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the said Act. The Magistrate after taking cognizance, issued summons to the accused, who are respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the said Court and was enlarged on bail. 3. The petitioner submits, the complaint against her is not maintainable. The cheques were issued in December, 2003. She retired from the 2nd respondent-firm with effect from 1-4-2001. In support of that submission, the petitioner relies on Ext. P2 deed of partnership, reconstituting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der reads as follows: The question in the present case is whether it could be said that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this High Court. According to the petitioner, cause of action arose in the State of Kerala and, therefore, writ petition will lie before this Court. Another incidental question to be decided is when and where the cause of action or part of cause of action arise to file a complaint under Section 138. Since, apparently, there are conflict of decisions of the two Division Benches, we are of opinion that the question whether a writ petition will lie before the High Court to quash a complaint pending in a subordinate Court in another State, if part of the cause of action arose in this State, in deserving circumstances, should be decided by a larger Bench of this Court. 6. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Sri Joy Thattil, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner mainly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra AIR2000SC2966 , in support of his submissions. Sri S. Sreekumar, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent mainly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mosa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Act, on the ground of dishonour of the cheques issued by him. A petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. was moved to quash the complaint. This Court held that the said petition under Section 482 is not maintainable, but observed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may lie, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Navinchandra's case (supra). Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable was not a point which arose for decision in that case. Dehors the said observation, the decision would stand. Therefore, the observation can only be treated as obiter dicta. The decision in U.B.C.'s case was also one relating to the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellants therein were accused in a calendar case on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Erode, in Tamil Nadu. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the said Act and issued summons. The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the complaint, on the ground that part of the cause of action arose in Kerala and, therefore, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain writs: (1) ... (2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The said clause was introduced as Clause (1A) by the 15th Amendment Act, 1963, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao [1953]4SCR1144 ; Rashid v. I.-T. Investigation Commission [1954]25ITR167(SC) ; Khajoor Singh v. Union of India [1961]2SCR828 and Collector of Customs v. E.I. Commercial Co. [1963]2SCR563 . The result of the above decisions was that writ petitions under Article 226 against the Union of India were maintainable only in the High Court of Punjab, as at the relevant time the territory of national capital was under the jurisdiction of the said High Court. The High Courts of Madras and Assam took a different view that if part of the cause of action arose within the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court considered the question regarding quashing of an F.I.R. and the criminal investigation conducted by the police in Shillong about the offences committed or the cause of action which arose in Maharashtra State. So, as the police from Shillong has to do investigation in Maharashtra, the Apex Court observed that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the matter. The said observation can have no application to a private complaint, based on which a Magistrate's Court, which is outside the jurisdiction qf the Kerala High Court takes cognizance and proceeds with the trial. So, the observation in Krishnakumar Menon's case, concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not lay down the correct legal position, as far as private complaints are concerned. Even if the cause of action for the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in Kerala, the Kerala High Court cannot interfere with the proceedings before a Criminal Court, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 11. The reference is answered as above. Since nothing more survives to be decided in this case, it is unnecessary to send this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
