ORDER

K.Ramakrishnan, J.—Complainant in CC.No.572/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The revision petitioner herein filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called the Act) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, against the first respondent herein alleging offences under section 138 of the Act, on the basis of a cheque given by the first respondent drawn on Federal Bank, Thenhipalam branch, Kozhikode in favour of the complainant on the basis of a law prevailing at that time and on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court, the case was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. Thereafter, on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(7) SC 273: 2014(3) CCC 164: 2014 (3) KHC 362. wherein the Supreme Court has held that the court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated alone will get jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 138 of the Act and also directed the Magistrate to return the complaint if evidence is not taken to present before the proper court and it is further observed in the same decision that if is presented within 30 days of such a return when it will be deemed to be filed within time, the learned Magistrate had passed Annexure-A5 order directing return of the complaint as per order dated 27.09.2014, that is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel V State of Maharashtra, 2015(1) Crimes 209 (Bom.): 2014(3) KHC 847 (Bom). in which it has held that if it is a cheque payable at par, this Court within whose jurisdiction, the bank it was presented and returned will get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3. Considering the fact that the judgment of the Bombay High Court has been challenged by the complainant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing petitions for Special Leave to appeal (Criminal) No.7251/2014, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted interim stay of the operation of the order, this court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor appearing for the second respondent and dispensing with notice to the first respondent.

4. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court mentioned above in the case of cheques issued at par, then the branch in which it was presented and dishonoured will be deemed to be the bank dishonouring the cheque giving jurisdiction to he Magistrate within whose jurisdiction that bank is situated to entertain the complaint. It is true that the Bombay High Court has taken a view in the decision mentioned above namely, Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel V State of Maharashtra (supra) that in the case of cheque issued at par then the bank in which it was presented and dishonoured will be deemed to be the drawee bank for the purpose of dishonour and court within whose jurisdiction that bank is situated will get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint explaining the decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra and Another (supra). Since, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of that order, then it cannot be said that the dictum is still in force so as to have a binding effect as well. Further, it was a decision of another High Court which has got only persuasive value for this court and in fact it is not having binding effect as well. But however, in view of the fact that the judgment in that case has been stayed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be taken as a case still having binding force so as to follow and in such circumstances, the dictum laid down in