1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5716 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.BYRANNA,
S/O KANIYAPPA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
PRINCIPAL,
SRI.MAHALINGESHWAR ITI,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU ROAD,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571511
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. E. MANJUNATHA GOWDA,
S/O EAREGOWDA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/O JYOTHI IIT, BATRAHALLI VILLAGE,
TALUK & DISTRICT:
KOLAR-563101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA.K, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2015 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOLAR IN
C.C.NO.491/2011, KOLAR, ANNEXURE-C.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
DICTATION,
THIS
DAY,
THE
COURT
MADE
THE
FOLLOWING:
A complaint was lodged by the respondent under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence of punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
alleging that when the cheque which was issued in
favour of the complainant by the accused towards
legally recover oval debt, when presented for realization
was returned for want of funds.
2.
The learned Magistrate after recording his
sworn statement took cognizance of the offence and
issued
summons
to
the
accused.
The
learned
Magistrate, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Dhasharath RoopSingh
Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2014(3) KCCR 2313 returned the complaint to be
presented
before
the
learned
Magistrate
having
territorial
jurisdiction,
since,
the
cheque
was
3
dis-honoured by the Vijaya Bank, Kanakapura Branch,
Kanakapura. Before the complaint was returned to the
complainant for presenting it before the learned
Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction, an ordinance
was issued confirming jurisdiction to the Court within
whose jurisdiction the drawee is having the account. In
view of the ordinance issued, the learned Magistrate
taking into account that the complaint was not returned
to the complainant directed the office to restore the
case to its original position. Taking exception of the
same, this petition is filed.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the learned Magistrate having passed an
order returning the complaint to be presented before
the learned Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction
becomes functus officio and in the absence of any
power, the learned Magistrate has committed an error
in restoring the complaint to its original file and the
same is one without jurisdiction. In support, reliance is
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs. Dwarkesh
4
Diamonds Private Limited and Others reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 246.
4.
On
the
other
hand,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent-Complainant submits that
learned Magistrate by exercising the power under
Section 410 of Cr.P.C has rightly restored the complaint
and the same cannot be set to be one without
jurisdiction.
5.
I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
6.
Sub-Section 2 of Section 410 of Cr.P.C.,
specifies that any judicial Magistrate may recall any
case made over by him under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 192 to any other Magistrate and may inquire
into or try such case himself. Section 192 of Cr.P.C.,
specifies
that
any
Magistrate
may
after
taking
cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry
or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief
Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order,
specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the
inquiry or trial.
5
7.
In the present case, the learned Magistrate
in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dhasharath RoopSingh Rathod (supra)
returned to the complaint to be presented before the
learned Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction. Before
the complaint was returned to the complainant an
ordinance was issued conferring jurisdiction to the
Court, within whose jurisdiction the drawee is having an
account to try the offence punishable under Section 138
of NI Act, 1881. Hence, the learned Magistrate taking
into account that he had the territorial jurisdiction to try
the complaint filed by the respondent-Complainant held
that the complaint is maintainable before him and
directed the Registry to restore the case to its original
position by exercising the power under Sub-Section 2 of
Section 410 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order passed by the
learned Magistrate restoring the compliant to its original
file is in confirmity with the Sub-Section 2 of Section
410 of Cr.P.C.
8.
The application for recall of the order was
made as it was an application not for seeking
6
substantive review, so as to attract the bar contain in
Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
In v