Back
2012(1) Bankmann 525 (A.P.)
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
N. Santhi Lakshmi —Petitioner
versus
The State of A.P. and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 376 of 2012
Decided on 21.2.2012
Held: A perusal of the complaint would show that jurisdiction of X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, was claimed on the ground that the bank of the 2nd respondent/complainant is situated at A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. (Para 7)
It is not the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant that the cheque in question was issued and delivered at A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. The only ground alleged to confer the territorial jurisdiction on the Court of X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, is presentation of the cheque at the Union Bank of India, A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad Branch, Ranga Reddy District for collection. As regards the presentation of the cheque, the Supreme Court in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., held that the bank referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued. It was further observed that the payee of the cheque has the option to present the cheque in any bank including the collecting bank where he has his account but to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to present the cheque in the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn within the period of six months from the date on which it is shown to have been issued. In para 20 of the said judgment, it is observed as under:
“A combined reading of Sections 3, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable.”
Ratio of the abovereferred judgment of the Supreme Court is that the cheque is deemed to have been presented to the drawee bank irrespective of the fact where it is deposited by the payee in his own bank. (Para 9)
In that view of the matter, I hold that the pleadings in the complaint, no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the local area of X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the order of taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the N.I. Act by the learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District on the complaint for presented by the 2nd respondent complainant and the learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District is directed to return the complaint to the 2nd respondent/complainant for presenting it before the Court having jurisdiction, within fifteen days. (Paras 16 & 17)
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused N. Shanthi Lakshmi in C.C.No.742 of 2009 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri Ranga Reddy District, to quash the proceeding therein.
2. 2nd respondent-Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 3-1-631, Vijaya Raghunandan Nagar, Karimnagar, AP, and has been carrying on business in chit funds. It has branches all over the State and one such branch is situated at Nellore. The petitioner/accused joined as a subscriber in one of the chits of the 2nd respondent/complainant at Nellore Branch. The total value of the chit is Rs. 5,00,000 and duration of the chit is 40 months. The petitioner/ accused became the successful bidder of the chit having agreed to forgo Rs. 2,24,000 out of total chit amount of Rs. 5,00,000. She received the prized amount. She issued an account payee cheque bearing No. 205379, dated 10.10.2008, for Rs. 88,945 drawn on Indus Ind Bank Limited, Nellore Branch, towards arrears of chit amount. The 2nd respondent/complainant presented the cheque in its account at Union Bank of India, A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad Branch, Ranga Reddy District, for collection. The cheque came to be returned on 2.12.2008 with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent/complainant issued a legal notice on 15.12.2008 to the petitioner/accused calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question. Since the petitioner/accused failed to make any payment despite receipt of notice on 30.12.2008, the 2nd respondent/complainant presented a complaint before X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, ‘the NI Act’) and registered the case as C.C.No.742 of 2009. Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.742 of 2009 to quash the proceedings therein.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that no part of cause of action for filing the complaint for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act against the petitioner/accused has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of X-Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District and therefore, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.742 of 2009 amounts to abuse of process of Court. According to the learned counsel, the entire chit transaction took place at Nellore and the cheque has been issued by the petitioner/accused at Nellore and the Bank of the petitioner/accused, on which cheque has been drawn, is situated at Nellore and the cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank at Nellore and therefore, it is only the Nellore Court which has jurisdiction and no other Court has jurisdiction. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.1322 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, for recovery of the amounts, in which case, it is impermissible for the 2nd respondent/complainant to initiate criminal proceedings on the same set of facts in a different Court and that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed the complaint in the Court of X -Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, to harass the petitioner/accused. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following cases:
(1) Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd.1
(2) Surjeet Singh v. G.E. Capital Transport Financial Service.2
(3) Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. v. Destination of the World Subcontinent) Pvt. Ltd.3
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant submits
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
