IMPORTANT POINT
In case cheque account of multi-city cheque to be presented at non-home branch, more than Rupees Ten lakhs, same would not be accepted by non-home branch of drawee bank, same position with regard to other types of accounts like current, cash credits, etc.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—There are three petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), assailing order dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned Municipal Magistrate-01, Karkardooma Courts, East, Delhi whereby the complaint(s) have been returned to the petitioner/ complainant for filing the same in the Court(s) having territorial jurisdiction.

2. Since all the petitions involve an identical question of law, therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Succinctly stating, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant filed complaint(s) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”, for short) against respondents for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Crl. M.C. No.4106/2014 pertains to cheque Nos.014295 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs), 014229 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs) and 018112 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs.1,00,00,000 (Rupees One crore) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022; Crl. M.C. No.4107/2014 relates to cheque No.014226, dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa- 751022; Crl. M.C. No.4108/2014 pertains to cheque Nos.018110 dated 18.10.213 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore), 018111 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupee One crore) and 014296 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022 and all cheques are payable at par at all IDBI Bank branches.

4. In order to have better understanding of facts of the cases, it would be appropriate to refer to facts of one case. The facts are being extracted from Crl. M.C. No.4106/2014. The complainant is a private Ltd. company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Vikas Kumar Tyagi is the person-in-charge/Marketing manager of complainant company and has been duly authorized by the complainant company vide resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors and also vide special power of attorney. The complainant and accused have had substantial business transactions in the past and in lieu of the business correspondence and financial transactions complainant company had sent payments to accused persons through RTGS and in discharge of part liability towards complainant co., accused no. 3 being the director of accused no.1 and in connivance with accused no.2, 4 and 5 issued cheque Nos.014295 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs), 014229 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs) and 018112 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees One crore) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangements & Signature Differ” vide memo dated 16.11.2013. Despite statutory notice dated 06.12.2013, the accused company failed to make the payment of the said cheques.

5. Vide impugned order, learned trial court returned the complaint(s) to the petitioner/ complainant for filing before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, in view of the judgment in “Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” (Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2014).

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that now a days, almost all the branches of the bank are covered under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and in terms of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RBI/2012-13/163 DPSS.CO.CHD. No.271/03.01.02/2012-13 dated 10.08.2012, all CBS enabled banks have been asked to issue only “payable at par”/ “multi-city” CTS 2010 standard cheques to all eligible customers. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the essential features of multi-city/ ch