Jurisdiction upheld for cheque bounce case, partners liable, mediation clause rejected. Trial to proceed swiftly.

The Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur was held to have jurisdiction over a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque was presented through an account within its jurisdiction. The court ruled that penal consequences for dishonor of the cheque cannot be shifted to another party. The maintainability of proceedings against erstwhile partners was upheld, emphasizing that the person who issued the cheque is liable. The plea to preclude criminal prosecution based on mediation and arbitration clause was rejected. The petition was dismissed, with directions to expedite the trial within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur.
2. Nature of dispute (Civil vs. Criminal).
3. Maintainability of proceedings against erstwhile partners.
4. Mediation and Arbitration clause in the agreement.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur
The petitioners argued that the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). They contended that the cheque was delivered for collection through an account maintained at Kannur, and thus jurisdiction should be with the court where the cheque was delivered. The court, however, referred to Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act and the explanation provided therein, which states that the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Himalaya Self Farming Group & Anr. v. M/s Goyal Feed Suppliers to support this interpretation. Therefore, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur, has jurisdiction as the cheque was presented through an account maintained within its jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Nature of Dispute (Civil vs. Criminal)
The petitioners argued that the dispute arising out of an agreement for the specific performance of construction of a commercial building is a civil dispute and should not entail criminal consequences. The court dismissed this argument, stating that penal consequences on dishonor of the cheque must be borne by the person who issued the cheque and cannot be delegated to another person.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Proceedings Against Erstwhile Partners
The petitioners claimed that the liability under the cheque and NI Act proceedings taken over by the contracting parties (Respondents 2 & 3) should not be maintainable against them as erstwhile partners. The court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the person who issued the cheque must face the penal consequences.

Issue 4: Mediation and Arbitration Clause in the Agreement
The petitioners sought to declare that mediation and arbitration provided in the agreement should preclude criminal prosecution. The court did not find any argument or evidence to substantiate this claim and thus did not grant this relief.

Conclusion:
The petition was found to be meritless and was accordingly dismissed. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within three months. The registry was instructed to forward a copy of the judgment to the trial court for compliance.

---