2013 Supreme(Del) 1454

High Court of Delhi
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Vijay Ghai & Others
Versus
Pal Singh Kartar Singh & Others
CRL.M.C. Nos. 3669 of 2011, 602, 603, 604, 606 of 2012
Decided On : 01-11-2013

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. The Supreme Court held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court re-affirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection in terms of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138 - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - 138 - 202 Cr.P.C. - 202 - Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2012 (7) SCALE 753 - Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609 - Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720 - K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 - Abhishek Agrawalla v. Boortmalt NV, (2011) 122 DRJ 42 - Rajesh Aggarwal v. State, 2010 (171) DLT 51 - Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 - Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, 2012 (3) SCALE 550 - Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged three summoning orders passed by the learned Magistrate in three separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners appointed respondent no.2 as its franchisee to sell its products on commission basis. The franchisee business came to an end with effect from 14th July, 2010 when the parties settled their disputes amicably and the petitioner paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent in full and final settlement. The respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate considered the evidence and issued the summons to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the summoning orders on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the Delhi Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction as the petitioners are residing at Ludhiana and the cheques in question were also drawn on the Bank at Ludhiana. The second ground of challenge is that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not conducted any inquiry or investigation in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

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. The Supreme Court held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court re-affirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection in terms of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant and the documentary evidence on the basis of which prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. No further enquiry was warranted in the matter. This case is squarely covered by Abhishek Agrawalla v. Boortmalt NV, (2011) 122 DRJ 42.

Issues: The petitioners challenged the summoning orders on two grounds: territorial jurisdiction and failure to conduct an inquiry or investigation in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: 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. The Supreme Court held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court re-affirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection in terms of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took into consideration the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant and the documentary evidence on the basis of which prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. No further enquiry was warranted in the matter. This case is squarely covered by Abhishek Agrawalla v. Boortmalt NV, (2011) 122 DRJ 42.

Final Decision: The petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/-each. The cost be paid by the petitioners to the respondent within four weeks. The Metropolitan Magistrate shall resume the proceedings forthwith and shall endeavour to complete the trial within six months. The parties shall appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18th November, 2013.