MARIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is the accused in a complaint case involving the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate-II, Jodhpur, Mahanagar. Producing a copy of the complaint with its translated version, and some annexures, petitioner has filed the above Original Petition to quash that complaint contending that the complainant has no cause of action to file such a complaint before the court where it was presented and taken cognizance of. That challenge set forth to quash the complaint is built up on the footing that the drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque to the bank, returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, notice issued on dishonour of the cheque to the drawer of that instrument and failure to pay the amount within 15 days on receipt of such notice by the drawer, all the aforesaid acts, have taken place at Ernakulam and no part of the cause of action has taken place at Jodhpur.

(2.) Entertainability of the Original Petition to quash the complaint filed before a magistrate court falling outside the jurisdiction of this court being doubted and pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, arguments were advanced before me as if the Original Petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Judicial pronouncements made by this court in U.B.C. v. Govarthanam, 2005 2 KerLT 461 and Meenakshi Sathish v. Southern Petrochemical Industries, 2007 1 KerLT 890 explicitly stating that it is not proper for this High Court to entertain a Writ Petition/Original Petition under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, to quash proceedings of a subordinate court under the superintendence of another High Court being pointed out, the learned counsel contended that such decisions have not laid down the correct law and more so, in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2010 1 SCC 457, such decisions have no binding force. Learned counsel contended that the petition seeking relief as aforesaid is perfectly maintainable. Observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 with reference to the cause of action in relation to the facts involved in the above referred case were banked upon by the learned counsel to contend that since the concatenation of all acts constituting cause of action for filing the complaint has arisen only within Ernakulam, the present Original Petition to quash the complaint filed before a court outside the jurisdiction of this court is proper, correct and perfectly entertainable.

(3.) I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. In Rajendran Chingaravelu's case (cited supra) challenge canvassed was over the action taken by the Income Tax Officials in respect of alleged violations of the provisions of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner in that case who had carried a huge sum of money when he travelled from Hyderabad Airport to Chennai Airport. A part of the cause of action involved in such case arose within Hyderabad and as such, the Original Petition filed by him before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was rejected by that court as not maintainable, was perfectly entertainable before that court, is the purport of the above decision. That decision, in no way, assist the petitioner to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings against him in a subordinate court outside the jurisdiction of this court invoking the extraordinary or supervisory jurisdiction of this court. Further more, the arguments canvassed as above in an Original Petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, which can have application only in relation to the subordinate courts falling under the control of this High Court to supervise the functions of such court, have no scope or merit at all. Even assuming that the Original Petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, it has to be pointed out that no writ can be passed against a private body except where it is shown that it has become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. Complainant who has filed the complaint before the Magistrate at Jodhpur is shown to be a financing company. Even assuming that such company is carrying on banking business, it cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. I need not dilate further on those aspects since no case in the lines referred to above has been pleaded or set forth in the above Original Petition, which, as already indicated, is styled only as an Original Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Before concluding, I may point out that there is absolutely no merit in the challenge set forth to quash the criminal proceedings over the complaint filed before a court outside the jurisdiction of this court on the premise that the entire cause of action arising from the dishonour of the cheque had taken place at Ernakulam. Observations made by the Apex Court in Bhaskaran v. Balan, 1999 3 KerLT 440 in determining the cause of action enabling the payee or holder in due course of a cheque, which on presentation had been dishonoured, are quite apposite and relevant in the matter. The Apex Court has observed thus: