The accused cannot appear before the High Court without disclosing their defense before the Magistrate and the imposition of realistic costs to control frivolous litigation.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th January, 2013 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The brief relevant facts relating to this case are as under:-

(i) The petitioner approached respondent no.2 to broadcast its advertisements on the FM channel “Fever 104 FM” in pursuance to which respondent no.2 broadcasted the advertisements and raised the bills.

(ii) The respondent issued a cheque bearing no.050221 dated 15th July, 2010 for Rs.19,14,243.80 drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Kolkata to respondent no.2 in discharge of the above liability.

(iii) Respondent no.2 presented the said cheque for clearance in Citi Bank, Cannaught Place, New Delhi whereupon the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide returned memo dated 12th January, 2011.

(iv) On 28th January, 2011, respondent no.2 issued a notice of dishonour to the petitioner by Regd. AD Post. The petitioner chose not to reply to the said notice.

(v) On 15th March, 2011, respondent no.2 instituted the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

(vi) On 31st March, 2011, the complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.CW-1/B by which the cheque was exhibited as Ex.CW-1/2, returned memo as Ex.CW-1/3, legal notice as Ex.CW-1/4, postal receipts as Ex.CW-1/5 to CW-1/11, acknowledgements as Ex.CW-1/13 to CW-1/18 and statement of account as Ex.CW-1/19.

(vii) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued the summons to the petitioner after examining the pre-summoning evidence and satisfying itself that prima face offence has been made out against the petitioner.

(viii) The petitioner entered appearance before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th January, 2012 but chose not to file the statement of defence in terms of the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Aggarwal v. State, 171 (2010) DLT 51.

(ix) The petitioner approached this Court in Crl. M.C.3110/2012 to challenge the terrirotrial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. On 7th September, 2012, the petitioner withdrew the said petition which was dismissed as withdrawn. The relevant portion of the order dated 7th September, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:

“Crl. M.C.3110/2012 & Crl.M.A.16148/2012

After making some submissions learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition which was filed for quashing of summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts stating that he would raise this issue before the Trial Court itself at the first instance. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

(x) On 11th March, 2013, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to challenge the territorial jurisdiction which was dismissed vide order dated 10th January, 2013.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 10th January, 2013 after a delay of more than nine months for which there is no explanation.

4. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of this petition is that the Delhi Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction as the cheque in question was drawn at bank at Kolkata.

Territorial Jurisdiction

5. The law with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2012 (7) SCALE 753 in which the Supreme Court, after considering Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720, held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection, has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of