AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 41510/2010. The accused had filed an application u/s 461(k)(i)(m) of Cr. P.C., inter alia questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance and proceed with the matter, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court, considering the application and objections, has held that the transaction between the accused and complainant took place in Kolkata and learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly has ordered for the return of the complaint. As against this order, the petitioner has filed this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that, the accused had not disputed that the complainant has got branch office in Bangalore, cheque was presented at Bangalore and legal notice was also issued from Bangalore. In reply to legal notice, the accused had not objected for initiation of proceedings from Bangalore. He also fairly submitted that Head Office is at Kolkatta, business transaction is in Kolkatta but supply is made from Bangalore and cheque was also presented at Bangalore, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that office of the Complainant-Company is at Kolkata, accused is also at Kolkata and transaction is also held at Kolkata, as such, hence the Bangalore Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint at Bangalore.
In this case, it is not in dispute that the Complainant-company has got branch office at Bangalore and complainant had issued legal notice from Bangalore and complainant also presented the cheque for encashment at Bangalore. It is pertinent to note that legal notice was issued to the accused, calling upon them to make payment. To the reply to the legal notice the accused has not raised the objections as to the jurisdiction. The trial Court has committed an error in not considering these circumstances, in holding that it has no jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 41510/2010 is set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings before the trial Court shall go on from the stage where it was stopped.