The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, being vested with the territorial jurisdiction over entire district, can take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’) within the territorial jurisdiction of the whole district. 

The Petitioner before the Court had thrown challenge to the complaint filed by the Respondent against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of CJM, Budgam, as well as the order passed by the CJM whereby process had been issued against the petitioner. 

The Petitioner had primarily challenged the jurisdiction of the CJM, Budgam to entertain the complaint and to issue the process. It was argued that the banker of the complainant/ respondent is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of CJM, Budgam and as per Section 142 of the N.I. Act, it is only the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection or where the cheque is presented for payment by the payee which has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, it was contended that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Magam, had the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and not the CJM, Budgam.

The Court while considering the challenge to the jurisdiction of the CJM held the same to be absolutely frivolous for the reason that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of a District is vested with territorial jurisdiction in respect of whole of the District. 

With respect to the case in hand, the Court noted, ‘the impugned complaint has admittedly been filed before the Court of learned CJM, Budgam, who has been vested with power over the local limits of whole of the District Budgam, which includes Narbal, the place where the respondent had presented the cheques for encashment. Therefore, the learned CJM, Budgam was well within his jurisdiction to entertain the impugned complaint and take cognizance of the offences.’

Moreover, the Petitioner also argued that the impugned order issuing process is cryptic and bereft of any details, as such, bad in law. However, while discarding the arguments of the Petitioner, the Court observed, ‘It is not necessary for a Magistrate to reproduce all the allegations made in the compliant in his order while taking cognizance of the offences. If such an order reflects the application of mind on the part of the Magistrate to the material before him and it bears reference to such material, the said order would be legally perfect and cannot be interfered with.’ Therefore, holding the petition as bereft of any merit, the Court dismissed the same.