LAW FOR ALL

Magistrate has erred in issuing process/summons to the petitioner/accused even before conducting enquiry on the complaint of the 1st respondent-complainant as provided under the amended sub- section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram and therefore, very entertaining of the complaint by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram is without jurisdiction and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.16 of 2010 amounts to abuse of process of Court.?= in the complaint that the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- on 05.4.2009 promising to repay the same with interest and issued cheque bearing No.234540 for Rs.4,50,000/- on the same day towards discharge of the pro note debt. It is the assertion of the 1st respondent-complainant that the pro note as well as the cheque are issued at Yerraguntla which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Kamalapuram. 9. If it is the contention of the petitioner/accused that cheque has not been issued by him at Yerraguntla, it can be said that this issue is a triable issue, which the trial Court has to adjudicate upon basing on the evidence proposed to be adduced by the parties. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner/accused that the proceeding in C.C.No.16 of 2010 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the same are instituted in a Court not having jurisdiction, cannot be countenanced.

Lakshmi Narasimha (Photo credit: Mithun Kundu) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6113 of 2010...