9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Court has assumed territorial jurisdiction, which is not vested on it? - HELD THAT:- Having given request for transfer to Kilpauk Branch and presenting the cheque at Kilpauk Branch, the complaint is filed before Metroplitan Magistrate (FTC-1) Egmore, which deemed to have territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners on receipt of the summons from the Court had participated in the trial cross examined the complainant and also marshalled their witnesses. At the fag end of the trial, he had filed the petition to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In view of this Court, the request for transfer of his account to Kilpauk Branch made by the complainant on 12/04/2022, which is prior to the presentation of the cheques and subsequent presentation of the cheques at Kilpauk branch saves the complaint from being vitiated. The irregularity what so ever had not caused prejudice to either side, the petition filed after examining the witnesses and at the fag end of the trial is another factor which desists this court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the peculiarity of the facts in this case, a strict interpretation of the explanation to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were presented for collection. 6. The bone of contention by the petitioners is that the complainant who was initially maintaining his account in Nanganallur Branch of Indusind Bank, had given a request on 12/04/2022 to transfer his account to Kilpauk Branch. As per the Bank Statement of Account(Ex.D-2), the account transferred to Kilpauk Branch only on 17/05/2022. Therefore, on the date (22/04/2022) of presenting the cheques the complainant Bank was Nanganallur Branch of Indusind Bank. Hence mentioning Kilpauk Branch as its Banker and filing the complaint in MM Court at Egmore instead of Alandur court which have jurisdiction over Nanganallur alleged to be error of jurisdiction which is not curable irregularity but vitiate the proceedings under Section 461 (m) of Cr.PC. 7. The trial Court after analysing the provisions in the Code concern with territorial jurisdiction and the provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly Section 142(2)(a), the earlier attempt of the petitioners to get the complaint quashed by filing writ petition before the Bombay High Court, dismissed the petition for the reason recorded as under:- This Court feels that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory notice sent to the accused on 02/05/2022. (e) Complaint under Section 138 NI Act presented on 8th June 2022 before the Metropolitan Magistrate(Fast Tack Court-1) Egmore mentioning the complainant bank falls within the police limit of G-3, Kilpauk Police Station which is well within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. 10. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the entries in the statement of account (Ex.D-2) proves that the request for transfer of account from Nanganallur Branch to Kilpauk Branch was acted upon and given effect only on 22/05/2022. Therefore, on the date of presentation of the cheques, it was Nanganallur Branch in which the complaianant maintaining the account on the date he presented the cheques for collection. 11. The learned Senior Counsel also rely on Section 461 (m) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to buttress his argument that the complaint being tried as summary trial case, it is vitiated for want of jurisdiction since the magistrates not empowered to try the case. 12. To buttress their arguments, the learned Counsels rely upon the following judgments decided on the jurisdiction of Criminal Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The testimony of the DW-1 read along with the explanation to Section 142(2)(b), makes clear that on the date of presentation of the cheques at Kilpauk Branch, the complainant base branch was Nanganallur and his request for transfer to Kilpauk Branch not given effect. 17. Will this vitiate the prosecution is the question need to be answered in the light of Sections 460 and 461 of Cr.P.C and Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 18. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that on the date of presentation of the cheques, the base branch of the complainant is Nanganallur Branch by applying the explanation to Section 142(2)(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The trial Court has tried the offender summarily without jurisdiction. Hence, under Section 461(m) gets vitiated. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contention is that, after giving request letter for transfer of account to Kilpauk Branch and having presented the cheques for collection at Kilpauk Branch, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore gets jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
