A. Ramamurthi, J.@mdashThis petition has been filed to direct XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet to take the complaint on file and dispose it
of according to law.
2. The learned Magistrate has returned the complaint on the ground that the accused and the complainant''s address are not within the jurisdiction
of that court. It is further stated that for the welfare and for the convenience of the complainant to file the case within the territorial jurisdiction she
had returned the complaint. Learned Magistrate also relied upon the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in M/s. Ess Bee
Specialities and Ors. v. Kapoor Brothers 1992 Suppl. MWN (Cri.)
3. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decisions of this Court in Narang Industries Ltd., etc. v.
Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, etc. 1997 (2) L.W. (Cri.) 699, M/s. Deepee Shoe Fabrics P. Ltd. v. Pallava Leathers and Products 1997 (1)
L.W. (Cri.) 205 and also a decision of Kerala High Court reported in P.K. Muraleedharan v. C.K. Pareed and Anr. 1993 (1) Cri 46. The
attention of the learned Magistrate is drawn to all these decisions only to act according to law.
4. When decisions of this Court are clear relating to the filing of a case u/s 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, the learned
Magistrate is directed to follow the decision of this Court properly and the learned Magistrate is also directed to record such statement and
dispose it according to law.
5. This petition is ordered accordingly.
