Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 6 (CAL)

Bharat Qumar Nandy v. State of West Bengal

2014-01-08

MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. 2. The present revisional application has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 6th Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2012 affirming the order dated 26th June, 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C- 19583 of 2008 (corresponding to T.R. No. 1971 of 2008). 3. The case relates to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act filed by opposite party no. 2 against the present petitioner who was the accused and therein the petitioner/accused filed a petition praying for dropping of the case on the ground that learned Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said petition was dismissed against which the present petitioner went up in revision but the revision case was also dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 4. On going through the records and upon hearing learned Advocates, I find that five different cases being C-35800 of 2008, C-35801 of 2008, C-35802 of 2008, the present case (C-19583 of 2008) and C-19582 of 2008 were instituted by the present opposite party no. 2/ her husband under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in three cases, being C-35800 of 2008, C-35801 of 2008 and C- 35802 of 2008, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the complainant in the said cases was given liberty to withdraw the said cases and to file the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complainant filed petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who allowed the prayer for withdrawal and gave liberty to the complainant to file the case before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction at Alipur, xerox copies of the orders in this regard having been annexed to this revisional application. However, as regards other two cases, which were decided by another Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 5. However, as regards other two cases, which were decided by another Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 5. This Court earlier, at the time of hearing of the present revisional application, expressed the view that the complaint relating to the present case should be sent to the competent Court at Alipur for trial. Notice was duly issued upon the opposite party no. 2, who is represented this day. 6. In my opinion, without going into the merits, as to whether learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had territorial jurisdiction to try the case, since the cheques were issued at Alipur and presented at Alipur and further more, the opposite party no. 2/her husband having already been allowed to withdraw the complaints in respect of other three cheques for filing the case before the appropriate competent Court at Alipur, ends of justice would be served if the complaint relating to this case is sent to the competent Court at Alipur for trial. 7. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta is directed to send the complaint being C-19583 of 2008 (corresponding to T.R. No. 1971 of 2008) to the competent Court at Alipur for trial. 8. The revisional application is accordingly disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.