The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the interpretation of the nature of the cheques issued by the petitioners.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (C-02), Delhi whereby the petitioners have been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) in a complaint case No.2587/1/11 titled as `M/s Him Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Balaji Sales Corporation & Ors.’ and order dated 11.1.2012 whereby notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioners.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the present case are that respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioners entered into an agreement dated 31.1.2009 for supply of 30,000 MT of heavy melting steel scrape i.e. CR/HR trimming & cut pieces, miss roll of TMT bars, Angle/channel etc. to the respondent/complainant company within a period of six months from the date of the agreement. It was agreed that 200 tonnes of scrap would be loaded and remitted to the respondent company on daily basis. As per the agreement price of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand) per MT included CST at the rate of 2% was settled. The respondent complainant paid a sum of rupees one crore and sixty lakhs to the petitioner vide two multicity cheques bearing No.155142 dated 31.1.2009 and 155143 dated 2.2.2009 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) and Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs) respectively both drawn on Syndicate Bank in favour of the petitioner. The respondent company also paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) towards advance payment of freight charges vide multicity cheque No.155144 dated 3.2.2009 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The petitioners/accused failed to supply the material in terms of agreement and merely supplied 547 MT of scrape upto 23.6.2009. After deducting the amount for the material supplied by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.70,42,960/- (Rupees seventy lakhs forty two thousand nine hundred and sixty) remained as excess payment which was made by the respondent and the said amount was refundable by the petitioners. The petitioners repaid the said amount vide cheques bearing No.000047, 48, 49 and 50 dated 23.6.2009, three cheqques of Rupees twenty lakhs each and one cheque for Rs.10,42,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and forty two thousand) drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., payable at all branches of the said Bank. The respondent/complainant presented the said four cheques with its banker Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi on 13.11.2009 and on presentation, all the four cheques were dishonoured with the remarks `Funds insufficient’. The fact of dishonour was conveyed to the respondent by their banker on 16.11.2009. The respondent again presented said four cheques with their banker on 18.12.2009 and the same were dishonoured with the remarks `funds insufficient’. The respondent served a legal notice of demand dated 15.1.2010. Despite service of the said notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheques within stipulated period.

3. With respect to the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi, it was pleaded in the complaint that the cheques issued by the petitioners were payable at Delhi and were deposited for collection by the respondent/complainant with the Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi and were received back dishonoured by Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi. Thus, the offence has been committed at Delhi.

4. Taking cognizance of the complaint vide order dated 11.1.2010 Metropolitan Magistrate (C-02), Delhi summoned the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Vide order dated 11.1.2012, notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioners.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

6. I have given my th