Pugalendi vs State

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This Revision is directed against the order dated 15.10.2012 made in Cr. M.P. No. 2703 of 2012 in C.C. No. 123/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri.

The petitioner is the accused in the said case, against whom, charge sheet has been laid for offence under Section 420 IPC. The de facto complainant is the Divisional Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Chennai. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 08.06.2007 before the District Crime Branch stating that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- for the purchase of lorry with Reg. No. TN 57 U 1188, but, without making the Hire Purchase endorsement, sold it to some one else clandestinely. It is further stated that there are several other branches for the complainant finance company and functioning at Krishnagiri and Tiruvannamalai, which are in administrative control of the said complainant and the Divisional Manager is authorised to finance loans. It is further stated that by virtue of powers vested with him, Madhan, Branch Manager of Tiruvannamali has financed Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 2,75,000/- for the purchase of two lorries to the petitioner viz., K. Pugalendi, Oothangarai during October 2005 and January 2006 since the Pugalendi proved to be a good customer; when the said Pugalendi wanted to purchase another lorry, S. Madhan sanctioned Rs. 3.25 lakhs and paid through a draft when customer called on him, by pre-arrangement at Krishnagiri Branch on 5.06.2006 after executing the due agreement. The further allegation in the complaint is that without making the hire purchase endorsement, the said lorry has been sold and the loan amount has not been repaid.

Based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No. 4/2007 for offences under Section 420 IPC. Subsequently, charge sheet has been laid for the said offence and the same has been taken on file in C.C. No. 123/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Krishnagiri. In the said C.C., Crl. M.P., has been filed by the petitioner under Section 239 read with Section 177 Cr.P.C., stating the court at Krishnagiri has no jurisdiction to try the case as per Section 177 Cr.P.C. The said petition was resisted by the respondent herein by filing counter affidavit stating that the transaction took place in Krishnagiri and therefore the Court at Krishnagiri has jurisdiction.

The court below, after taking into consideration the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 8 of the complaint observed that the averments in the complaint proved that the alleged offence has taken place at Krishnagiri, over which the court has jurisdiction and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.

In terms of Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 Cr.P.C., states about the place of Inquiry or trial. Section 178(a) states that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local area, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that Clause (b) of Section 178 would stand attracted and part of cause of action arose at Krishnagiri and therefore, the Court at Krishnagiri is entitled to try the matter.

The averments made in the complaint has been referred in the preceding paragraphs. Even in the complaint, the de facto complainant is not certain as regards the area in which offence committed but would vaguely state that the entire transaction has taken place in Krishnagiri District. It is an admitted fact that with the power vested with the Branch Manager at Tiruvannamalai loan sanction power was exercised on earlier occasions. Even in respect of third loan amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-, the said Madhan, the Branch Manager of Tiruvannamalai sanctioned the same. The word pre-arrangement assumes significance in the present case for deciding the jurisdiction of the court. If loan application is received, approved and sanctioned at Krishnagiri, the language used in the complaint would be simple and the complainant would have stated the facts that the entire cause of action arose at Krishnagiri, but the complaint is that Mr. Madan exercised his jurisdiction as he was satisfied with the customer that he is a good customer by taking into consideration his past record and he sanctioned the loan on pre-arrangement i.e., pursuant to internal arrangement between the various branches of the Finance Company. Therefore, such pre-arrangement cannot be one of the factors which could determine the place of enquiry or trial under Section 178 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the case could be tried within the jurisdiction of the competent court at Tiruvannamalai and not by the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri is directed to forward the case papers to the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, who shall assign the matter to the competent magistrate namely to the concerned Judicial Magistrate court having jurisdiction over the area in which the de facto finance company at Tiruvannamalai operates. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Consequently, connected MP is closed.