Alexander Thomas, J.

The order under challenge is the one at Anx.A-3 dated 26.5.2016 whereby the complaint in C.C.No.22/2013 filed by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V (Special Court for Marklist Cases), Thiruvananthapuram, has been returned to be filed before the proper court, which has territorial jurisdiction as per Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The brief facts leading to the said impugned order are as follows:

2. The complaint in question is filed by the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in which the 2nd respondent herein has been arrayed as accused. The dishonoured cheque in question is for Rs. 25 lakhs dated 5.7.2012 drawn from the account of the accused maintained in the ICICI Bank, Kunnamkulam Branch. The complaint was initially filed as Crl.M.P. No.4045/2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on 12.10.2012. The case was taken on file by the CJM as C.C.No.44/2013 on 11.1.2013 as the collection bank of the complainant is Corporation Bank, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, which is within the limits of Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station, over which the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram, had territorial jurisdiction at that time. From the report dated 1.6.2017 of the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been furnished to the Registry of this Court in connection with this case, it is seen that during the year 2012, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, had only jurisdiction for the trial of mark list cases (State wide jurisdiction) and has no notified territorial jurisdiction based on Police Station. As the number of Mark List Cases pending in that court was very few, cases were normally made over to that court by the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram, and other courts having heavy pendency. Therefore, considering the fact that the workload in the CJM Court was quite heavy, the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram, after taking cognizance of the offence had exercised his power under Section 192(1) of the Cr.P.C and the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, and the said court had taken the case on file as C.C.No.22/2013. In the judgment dated 1.8.2014 of the Apex Court in the case Dasarath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has categorically held that the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is on the dishonor of the cheque and that going by the mandate of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C, the territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Magistrate Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed, which in the context of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is the court within whose local jurisdiction in the territorial limits the cheque is dishonoured by the bank in which it is drawn. In other words, in interpreting the provisions contained in the N.I. Act and the Cr.P.C, their Lordships of the Apex Court in Dasarath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, have conclusively held that the territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the court within those local jurisdiction, the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank. However, the Apex Court in para 22 of the above said judgment, issued some special directions in order to alleviate the hardships that may be caused to litigants and ordered that in those cases where, post the summoning and appearance of the accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act, would continue at the original court and further that whether the evidence has been let in before the Magistrate at the presummoning stage, either by way of affidavit or by oral statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque was dishonoured and that the ca