IMPORTANT POINT
N.I. Act is a special legislation and provisions contained in it have overriding effect over provisions contained in a general statute.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner assails order dated 26.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

2. The concise facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) against the petitioner (accused in original complaint) for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act on the allegations, inter alia, that respondent No.2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at D-1, Soami Nagar, (South) New Delhi-110017 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of disposable medical devices and delivering high quality standards. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. BJS Pharmaceuticals. He approached respondent No.2 at its registered office at New Delhi for being appointed as the Consignee Agent and respondent No.2 after detailed discussions and negotiation agreed to the same and appointed the petitioner as the Consignee Agent and a written agreement enumerating various terms and conditions was entered into with the accused at New Delhi wherein it was clearly mentioned that in case of any dispute courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction. As per the order placed upon by the petitioner, respondent No.2 supplied goods to the petitioner against Form-F vide various invoices and as per the statement of accounts maintained by respondent No.2 during the course of business. The total outstanding liability against the petitioner including liability towards Form-F, which the petitioner failed to supply to respondent No.2 was Rs.2,43,33,924/- (Rupees Two crores forty three lakhs thirty three thousand nine hundred and twenty four) as on 31.10.2010. The petitioner also failed to provide Form-F for the goods supplied to the petitioner without payment of Sales Tax, thereby making itself liable to pay the penalty imposed upon respondent No.2 by the competent authorities and in lieu thereof the accused agreed to compensate respondent No.2 the amount imposed as penalty. In discharge of his liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.631703 for a sum of Rs.2,37,37,556/- (Rupees Two crores thirty seven lakhs thirty seven thousand five hundred fifty six) drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Saban Bazar, Ludhiana. On presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remark ‘Effects Not Cleared/ Present Again’ vide returning memo dated 02.12.2010. The petitioner requested respondent No.2 to present the said cheque again which on presentation to ICICI Bank, New Delhi was dishonoured again with the remarks ‘Payment stopped by Drawer’ vide returning memo dated 20.12.2010. Despite statutory notice dated 30.12.2010, the petitioner failed to make the payment of the cheque amount.

3. Vide order dated 09.03.2011; learned trial court took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and summoned the petitioner. Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on 29.05.2014 and the petitioner sought time for moving application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. On 26.09.2014, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the complaint is liable to be returned for filing the same in the Court having appropriate jurisdiction, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 (9) Supreme Court Cases 129: 2014(2) Bankmann 53 (SC): 2014 (3) Crimes 162 (SC): 2014 (5) Supreme 641: 2014(3) CCC 164.

The trial court observed that the matter is listed for moving application under Section 145(2) of NI Act, no application was filed on behalf of petitioner and, therefore, declined the request made by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.09.2014.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the pe