ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.5936 of 2011, dated 01.03.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate in CC No. 41505 of 2010, dated 22.09.2011, whereby and whereunder the complaint filed by the appellant was returned by the learned Magistrate on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and also recalled the order issuing summons to the respondents on the application filed by the respondents under Sections 202, 203 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code” for short).

3. The facts are: The appellant had filed a private complain under Section 200 of the Code against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“Act” for short). The learned Magistrate, by order dated 4.9.2010, took cognizance of the offence and the complaint was registered as CC No. 41505 of 2010. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, upon recording the evidence of the appellant and perusing through the documents produced along with the complaint, was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the respondents by order dated 16.9.2010.

4. After service of summons, the respondents had filed an application under Sections 202, 203 and 245 of the Code questioning the maintainability of the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, has allowed the said application and proceeded to recall his previous order issuing summons to the respondents and returned the complaint to the appellant, with a direction to present the complaint before the competent Court by order dated 22.9.2011.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court. The High Court while concurring with the view taken by the learned Magistrate has rejected the said petition.

6. It is the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court that is called in question by the appellant before us.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Magistrate was not justified in recalling the order issuing summons and thereafter, returning the complaint under Section 201 of the Code upon an application filed under Sections 202, 203 and 245 of the Code by the respondents. He would further submit that at the said stage of the proceedings the appropriate remedy to be sought, if the order of the learned Magistrate stands vitiated due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, is by filing of an application/petition under Section 482 and not under Section 203 of the Code. He would assert that this aspect of the matter has not been noticed by the High Court while rejecting the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a three judge bench decision of this Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others,1 (2004) 7 SCC 338, wherein this Court has observed that the appropriate remedy to be sought in such stage of proceedings is by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code.

8. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the learned Magistrate was justified in returning the complaint under Section 201(1) filed by the appellant since the learned Magistrate did not possess the territorial jurisdiction. He would further submit that the decision of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra), relied upon by the appellant does not notice Section 201 of the Code and thus requires to be declared as per incuriam by this Court.

9. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the judgment and order of the Courts below.

10. The point that