Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 888 (AP)

Topline Shoes Ltd. v. State of A. P.

2006-07-25

P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

body2006
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 688 of 2003 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Secunderabad, and also to recall the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:— The second respondent-M/s. Videocon International Limited West Marredpally, Secunderabad, filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that pursuant to a special resolution of amalgamation, it absorbed Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited and that the complainant-company has also got a branch at Secunderabad. Several allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein and it is also averred that the consequence of the acts of the petitioners have affected the complaint-company whenever and wherever it is carrying on business in India and thus, the petitioners herein and it is also averred that the consequences of the act of the petitioners have affected the complainant-company whenever and where it is carrying on business in India and thus, the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 417, 418 and 420 I.P.C. 4. On such allegations in the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused and thereafter, issued warrant also. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are A-1 and A-2, filed the present petition contending that the learned Magistrate failed to see any allegation of cheating in the complaint to the then Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited and further, failed to consider the aspect of legal jurisdiction conferred under Section 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. and thus, the entertainment of the complaint itself is illegal and devoid of jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate failed to consider prima facie on a look at the complaint of the second respondent herein that no element of cheating on the part of the petitioners 1 and 2 was made out and thus, he went wrong in entertaining the complaint and therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 688 of 2003 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Secunderabad, are liable to be quashed. 5. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no part of the alleged offences was committed, at Secunderabad and that by the date of commission of offences, there was no branch of Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited at Secunderabad and that subsequent to the alleged offences, Videocon Narmada Electronics Limited was merged with Videocon International Limited and it was only thereafter a branch of Videocon International Limited was established at Hyderabad and that the entire alleged offences took place only in Gujarat State and no part of it took place at Secunderabad and therefore, the Magistrate, erred in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons and warrants to the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. are liable to the quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that any Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence and therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate at Secunderabad has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in the present case. 7. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal. (1999) 8 SCC 686 wherein it is held that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence need not necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well and that any Magistrate of First Class, has power to take cognizance of any offence, no matter whether the offence was committed within his jurisdiction or not and the jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that the learned Magistrate did not stop with mere taking cognizance of the offences, but further, proceeded with and issued summons and also warrants though he had no jurisdiction to try the case. Now, the point for determination in this Criminal Petition is; “Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 688 of 2003 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Secunderabad, are liable to be quashed?” 9. As seen from the decision cited supra, any Magistrate of First Class has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence though that Court has no jurisdiction to try that case. As seen from the decision cited supra, any Magistrate of First Class has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence though that Court has no jurisdiction to try that case. But, here, in the instant case, the Magistrate did not stop with mere taking cognizance of the offences, but proceeded with further and issued summons and warrants to the accused, obviously to commence trial Admittedly, no part of the offence took place within the jurisdiction of the Secunderabad Magistrate and that the alleged offences took place in Gujarat State. Therefore, the Magistrate has grossly erred in issuing summons and warrants to the accused named in the complaint. 10. As seen from Section 192(2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence, shall make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate having jurisdiction to conduct inquiry of trial. But, the learned Magistrate instead of transferring the same to the Court having jurisdiction to try the case erroneously issued summons and warrants to the accused. Therefore, though the Magistrate has got power to take cognizance of the offence concerned, in this case but he has no jurisdiction to conduct inquiry or trial and hence, the learned Magistrate is directed to transfer the case to the competent Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the alleged offences are committed. The point is found accordingly. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is party allowed, quashing the issuing of process as summons or warrants to the petitioners and directing the Magistrate to transfer the case to the Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the alleged offences are committed. Regarding the other contentions raised in the petition the accused are at liberty to raise the same before the appropriate Court.