Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT (DB)
Ramesh Madhav Bapat and Ghulam Mohammed, JJ.
Vasavi Fertilisers Dealer. Eluru and others -Petitioners (Accused.)
versus
Nagarjuna Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. and another -Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 5210 of 1998
Decided on 14-10-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners: MI s. E. Ella Reddy and B. Nalini Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M/s. V.R. Manohar and C. Malla Reddy, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
For an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, complaint can be filed where the notice in writing was given to drawer of cheque demanding payment.
Headnote:(1) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138/142 - Dishonour of cheque – Territorial jurisdiction of Court to try offence -Cheque was issued against an account with Bank at Eluru - Complainant presented cheque in his Bank at Kakinada - Complaint was filed before a Court at Hyderabad - Notice of demanding the amount due was issued from the Registered Office of complainant located at Hyderabad Complainant was justified in filing complaint before Magistrate in Hyderabad - Petition seeking quashing of proceedings for lack of territorial jurisdiction was liable to be dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Trial - Territorial jurisdiction - While deciding the jurisdiction, the Court has to consider not only complaint but also the material filed along with it.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.- The petitioner in the above petition was an accused. The first respondent herein filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On receipt of summons, tl1e petitioner approached this Court for quashing the proceedings by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
2. The averments made in the complaint are as follows:
"It is further submitted that the accused is intentionally avoiding and evading to pay the amount to the complainant. As such, the complainant insisted for the amount. Hence, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 1135158 dated 20-7-1998 drawn on Bank of India, Eluru, East (sic) West Godawari District for a sum of Rs. 2,36,683-76 Ps. towards the due amount. Believing the accused, the complainant accepted and presented the said cheque through their banker-State Bank of Hyderabad, Kakinada Branch, for realisation of the amount. But the same was returned, dishonoured by the accused's banker with an endorsement, "Insufficient funds" vide their memo dated 23-7-1998. The same was intimated to the complainant by their banker on 28-7-1998. The fact of the dishonour of the said cheque was intimated to the accused by the complainant orally, but the accused failed and neglected to pay the cheque amount to the complainant with an intention to cheat the complainant. The original cheque and dishonour memo are filed herewith."
3. From the reading of the complaint, it is evident that the cheque was issued to the complainant against an account maintained in Bank of India at Eluru by the accused. The cheque was presented by the complainant in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Kakinada Branch where he maintained an account for realisation from the Bank of India, Eluru. The cheque was returned and dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds". On this basis, the accused sought for quashing of the complaint by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
4. In para (6) of the complaint it was averred by the complainant as under:
"The Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to try the complaint as the complainant's Regdistered office is situated at Panjagutta, Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad, which comes under the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
5. The accused pleaded that the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and therefore, sought quashing of the proceedings as the cause of action arose beyond the jurisdiction of the Court at Hyderabad.
6. The above quashing proceedings was placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court (Bilal Nazki, J.). The learned Single Judge felt that there have been differences of opinion in the earlier decisions rendered by this Court. The learned Single Judge cited a case reported in M/s Goutham T.V. Centre v. M/s. Apex Agencies1. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the said decision. The learned Single Judge felt that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court only because a notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount within a period of 15 days was issued through the Registered office situated at Hyderabad and therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing the matter before the Division Bench of this Court for laying down the correct position of law.
7. It further appears from the record that similar petitions i.e., Crl. Petition Nos. 2489 and 2490 of 1999 came before another learned Single Judge (Yaman Rao. J.) and therefore, at the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, all the criminal petitions involving the same law point have been referred to this Court for laying down the correct position of law.
8. The learned Counsel Mr. E. Ella Reddy appeared for some of the accused and Mr. B. Nalini Kumar appeared for some of the accused. It was contended by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the original petitioners (accused) that the cause of action arose to the compla
