The judgment emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, the necessary ingredients of criminal offences, and the limitations on the exercise of revisional and inherent powers of the High Court.

H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.01.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar (for short the Revisional Court) on a criminal revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short the trial Court) taking cognizance dismissing the revision petition.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order of revisional Court as well as of trial Court taking cognizance of the offences.

3. The petitioners have availed one revision under Section 397, CrPC before the revisional Court. The only contention raised by the petitioners before the revisional Court was regarding the jurisdiction of the Court. The revisional Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners themselves appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and submitted to the jurisdiction and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar had no jurisdiction. Even on perusal of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar has no jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Court trying the complaint is well within the jurisdiction.

4. Learned Counsel contended that the respondent gave a cheque to petitioner No. 2 Shyam Sunder, which on presentation to the bank, was dishonoured and, therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short the Act) was filed by petitioner No. 2 against the respondent and the present case instituted by respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 468, 467, 471, 477 and 120-B, IPC, is a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner No. 2.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court is Sunil Kumar vs. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. & Ors., 1999 (8) SCC 468 and a decision of this Court in S.K. Gulati & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 177/2000 decided on 06.04.2004. In Sunil Kumars case (Supra), Honble Supreme Court held that the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust have not been made out and on the other hand the attendant circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In that case, the High Court quashed the FIR. The Apex Court refused to interfere in the order quashing FIR.

6. In S.K. Gulatis case (Supra) relying on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumars case (Supra), this Court observed that even taking the allegations made in the complaint on its face value, it does not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420, IPC and, therefore, quashed the proceedings.

7. In the instant case, it appears that the complaint filed by respondent against the petitioners as also the complaint filed by petitioner No. 2 against respondent under Section 138 of the Act are almost simultaneous. Petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the trial Court on 24.04.2003 and ultimately, the trial Court took cognizance on 10.2003 against respondent, whereas, respondent lodged the case against the petitioners on 23.04.2004 i.e. a day prior and after investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 465, 467, 471, 477 and 120-B, IPC. The trial Court on perusal of the material placed before it, prima facie came to the conclusion that there is a ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offences noticed above and took the cognizance of offences.

8. In Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 1734, the Apex Court held as under:-"At this stage, the Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well set