Back
2010(2) Bankmann 161 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
M/s. Religare Finvest
Limited — Petitioner
versus
Sambath Kumar — Respondent
Crl. M.C.No. 872 of 2010 with Crl. M.C. No. 1148 and 1235 of 2010
Decided on 2.7.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where in a complaint for offence u/s 138 N.I. Act, plea of substantial cause of action in complaint was of a place, court of such place will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain that complaint.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Prosecution for offence of dishonour of cheque—Territorial jurisdiction—Petitioner-complainant a banking Co. with its registered office in Delhi advanced loan to respondents—Loan agreement was executed at Delhi—Respondents handed over cheque towards discharge of that loan liability at Delhi—Cheques were presented for collection in Delhi and on its bouncing demand notice was issued from Delhi—Magistrate ordered for return of complaints for being presented before Court having territorial jurisdiction—Whether impugned order suffered from illegality? Yes.
Held: A perusal of the complaints filed by the complainant company against the accused persons in the present case would show that the following cause of actions persist within the jurisdiction of Delhi courts:
“(i) The complainant company is having its registered office at New Delhi and maintaining all the records and doing its business from its registered office, i.e. from Nehru Place, New Delhi;
(ii) The loan agreement is the written documentary evidence which was executed between the petitioner and the accused in Delhi;
(iii) The cheque was handed over by the accused to the complainant at Delhi;
(iv) The cheque was presented to the payee bank, i.e. Presenting bank in Delhi;
(v) The cheque was dishonoured by the drawer bank’s clearing branch which situates at New Delhi;
(vi) The complainant came to know about the dishonour of cheque within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court;
(vii) The parties to the agreement in terms of the agreement conferred the jurisdiction upon the courts at New Delhi alone; and
(viii) Legal demand notice was issued from Delhi.”
From the above, it is crystal clear that most and substantial part of cause of action for filing of complaint by the complainant company against the accused persons under Section 138 of the NI Act had arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. Hence, the impugned orders of the court below holding that no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, on the face of it are illegal and unlawful and against the factual matrix of the case. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. These petitions are allowed. (Paras 20 and 21)
S.N. Aggarwal, J.— All these three petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by
M/s. Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner/complainant company) are proposed to be decided by this common judgment because questions of facts and law involved in them are identical.
2. The legal issue that is involved in these petitions is about the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts to entertain complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the NI Act’) relating to bouncing of cheques.
3. The petitioner company had filed three separate complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondents/accused persons which vide impugned orders dated 19.08.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi have been ordered to be returned to the complainant company for want of territorial jurisdiction under Section 201 Cr.P.C. for presentation of the same before the competent court within thirty days from the date of return of the complaints. The orders impugned by the petitioner company in these petitions have been passed by the court below relying upon a recent verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Another v. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd.1
4. Notice of these petitions was not sent to the accused persons/respondents since the complaints in question were ordered to be returned by the court below to the complainant company for want of territorial jurisdiction at pre-summoning stage.
5. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner company and have also perused the written arguments placed by him on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner company on the legal issue that is involved for decision of these petitions.
6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a banking company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Nehru Place, New Delhi-19, within the territorial limits of Delhi courts. The petitioner company had filed three separate complaint cases against the respondents/accused persons with accusations against them that they had availed the loan facility from the complainant company and in consideration of their having availed the loan facility had executed loan agreements in favour of the complainant company at its registered office at New Delhi reserving jurisdiction for Delhi courts alone in the event of any disputes, under the said loan agreements. It was further stated in the complaints that the respondents/accused persons in order to discharge its/their part liability/debt had handed-over separate cheques of different amounts in favour of the complainant company at its office at New Delhi and these cheques were returned unpaid when presented for encashment. The cheques in question were presented by the complainant company to its bankers namely HDFC Bank Limited, New Delhi for encashment but they were returned unpaid by the drawer’s bank along with return memo for the reason ‘EXCEEDS ARRANGEMENT’. Subsequent to the dishonour of the cheques, the complainant company served a legal demand notice dated 23.01.2009 under Section 138 of the NI Act and thereby called upon the accused to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques within a period of fifteen days and since the accused failed to make payment of the dishonoured cheques within the stipulated time period of fifteen days; the complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were instituted by the complainant company against the accused persons/respondents. The court below vide its impugned orders dated 19.08.2009 has ordered return of these complaints to the complainant company for its presentation to the competent court within thirty days of its return as, according to the court below, it has no territorial jurisdiction to en
