IMPORTANT POINT
Magistrate taking cognizance of offence must not necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well.

Suresh Kait, J.—Vide the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.03.2010, whereby, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi returned the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’), inter alia holding that the complaint is barred by jurisdiction.

2. In the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the summons have not been issued by learned MM as the complaint filed by the petitioner has been returned on the ground of jurisdiction, therefore, there is not necessity to issue notice to the respondent in the instant petition also. This position has been fortified by the judgment of the constitution bench in the case of Chander Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose1 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the entire scheme of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till the process is issued; and since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cheque in question was duly presented by the petitioner as the complainant through its bank (collecting bank) to the respondent/accused bank at New Delhi. Ld. Counsel further submits that cheque which was payable at par at all branches of ICICI Bank was issued to the complainant by the respondent/accused in partial discharge of the pecuniary liability (towards repayment of the loan). Same was tendered to the Citibank N. A., Jeevan Bharti Building Connaught Place, New Delhi where the petitioner has account bearing No.7152027 for encashment. Same was presented by the Citibank N. A. to the respondent’s bank through clearing house of RBI at New Delhi. Cheque was dishonoured by the bank of the respondent on account of insufficiency of the funds in the respondent’s account at New Delhi. Cheque was returned unpaid by the respondent’s bank to the petitioner’s bank at New Delhi. Legal/demand notice was issued to the respondent within the statutory period seeking payment of the cheque amount from New Delhi. Respondent failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice at New Delhi. A complaint case under Section 138 NI Act had been filed at New Delhi.

4. The petitioner also led an evidence of an expert witness Shri Raja Maingi, Assistant Manager, Citibank, N.A., New Delhi, who deposed on oath that in the return memo of drawee bank LOC Delhi means presentation of cheque was made in Delhi to the bank of the accused and the cheque was dishonoured due to the reason mentioned by the accused bank and returned unpaid to the bank in Delhi. Even in the case accused is having an account outside Delhi, the cheque physically never goes thereunder the core banking system. The accused’s bank participate as a member of core banking system, accordingly these cheques were presented at Delhi as per RBI guidelines to the bank of accused.

5. Further submits that the learned Trial Court returned the complaint in spite of the fact that the present case is fully covered by the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29044/2009 titled as Vinay Kumar Shailendra v. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee & Anr. He further made it clear that the SLP was filed against the order dated 23.9.2009 passed by this Court in WP (C) No.11911/ 2009 titled Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. Government of NCT of Delhi2 whereby, the Supreme Court had directed status quo, as on today, shall be maintained until further orders. Since the present complaint was filed in May 2009, much before the directions passed by the Apex Court.

6. Before going into the issues with respect of the jurisdiction in this present petition, it is essential to refer the judgment dated 23.9.2009 of the Division Bench of this Co