2007 (1) TMI 644 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court of Kerala can quash a complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Coimbatore.
2. Whether a writ of prohibition can be issued against the Coimbatore Court from proceeding with the case.
3. Jurisdictional conflict regarding the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

The petitioner, a retired partner of an unregistered firm, sought to quash a complaint filed u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that cheques issued by the firm were dishonored. The petitioner argued that she retired from the partnership effective 1-4-2001, and thus, was not responsible for the cheques issued in December 2003. The petitioner relied on various documents, including the reconstituted partnership deed and income tax returns, to support her claim. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition, stating that the complaint and the Magistrate's cognizance occurred outside its jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Issuance of Writ of Prohibition

The petitioner also sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the Coimbatore Court from proceeding against her. The High Court observed that the actions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Coimbatore, in taking cognizance and issuing process, occurred entirely outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court of Kerala could not grant the relief sought.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional Conflict under Article 226

The case was referred to a larger Bench due to conflicting decisions in Krishnakumar Menon v. Neoteric Informatique (P) Ltd. and U.B.C. v. Govarthanam. The Court examined whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained to quash a complaint pending in another state if part of the cause of action arose in Kerala. The Court concluded that the decision in U.B.C. v. Govarthanam, which held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, laid down the correct legal position. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, noting it pertained to quashing an FIR and police investigation, not a private complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion:

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petitions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings before a Criminal Court outside its territorial limits. The petitioners were advised to seek appropriate reliefs from the Coimbatore Court or the Madras High Court.