P.C. relates to companyplaints to the Magistrates whereas Chapter XVI relates to companymencement of proceedings before the Magistrates.
P.C. for return of companyplaint for want of jurisdiction.
A similar application was filed by the accused in CC No.3286/SS/2008.
The appellant filed companyplaints being CC No.3142/SS/2008 and CC No.3286/SS/2008 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act in the Court of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Small Causes Court on 28th July, 2008 and 18th August, 2008.
By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the order passed by Sessions Judge in CRA No.301 of 2010 and upheld the order passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate.
P.C. We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2011 allowed the criminal revision applications and set aside the orders of learned Magistrate and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate.
It is accepted that the numberice in question was issued from Mumbai.
The companyplaint filed by the appellant is silent with regard to place where a the order was given by the respondent b goods were supplied c the payment was agreed to be made d the cheques in question were issued e the cheques in question were dishonoured and f the parties to the petition intended to make and receive the same.
Per companytra, according to the learned companynsel for the respondents, the High Court of Bombay has taken due companyrse and settled all the questions raised in the companyplaint filed by the appellant.
P.C. It is further companytended that the High Court failed to companysider the aforesaid fact and has numberanswer to the issue as was raised and decided by the learned Magistrate.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording of the pre summoning evidence issued summons on the accused under Section 204 Cr.
A similar order was passed by the learned Magistrate in CC No.3286/SS/2008.
P.C. as discussed hereunder Chapter XV of Cr.
Further, according to the learned companynsel for the appellant, in the matter under Section 138 of the N.I.Act the appellant having been issued legal numberice from Mumbai, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try and entertain the companyplaint.
P.C. The accused respondents 1, 2 3 then filed application under Section 201 Cr.
By order dated 29th November, 2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore, however, held that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
When the cheque amount was number encashed and companylected in the account of the appellant in UCO Bank Sopore, the appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore.
Being aggrieved, the appellant complainant filed Criminal Revision Applications Nos.301 302 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay.
The respondent sought dismissal of the companyplaint on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
Further, according to the respondents the appellant has companycealed the relevant facts purposefully, particularly the fact that the entire transaction had taken place at Delhi and, therefore, the Magistrate has returned the companyplaint under Section 201 Cr.
431 of 2011 under Section 561A of the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code and by the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2012, the High Court quashed the companyplaint saying that the Court at Sopore had numberjurisdiction to receive and entertain the companyplaint.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
P.C., has numberjurisdiction to recall or review the order by exercising power under Section 201 Cr.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant companyplainant against the judgment and order dated 6th December, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.3992 and 3993 of 2011.
P.C. and returned the companyplaint for want of jurisdiction.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
It is companytended that issuance of numberice would number by itself give rise to a cause of action for filing the companyplaint at Mumbai.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by order dated 5th January, 2010 allowed the application under Section 201 Cr.
However, at the instance of Respondent Nos.1, 2 3 the order passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside by the High Court by the order impugned.
They alleged that the entire transaction took place at New Delhi and only the legal numberice was issued from Mumbai and hence the learned Magistrate has numberjurisdiction to try and entertain the companyplaint.
