The unilateral act of presentation of a cheque or issue of notice of dishonour does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court. Special legislation has an overriding effect over general statute.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) against order dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby Criminal Revision bearing No. 85 of 2014 was dismissed.

2. In short the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner and its Directors for the offences punishable under Sections 138/141/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, NI Act). Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 01.06.2013 issued summons to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 21.08.2013 notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C. was given to the petitioners and other co-accused persons and the plea of the accused was recorded. Vide order dated 21.08.2013 the trial court observed that perusal of the plea of the accused reveals that he has put forth a plausible defence and accordingly, matter was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant’s witness.

3. Thereafter, petitioner moved four applications, i.e.

(i) Application under Section 177 Cr. P.C. praying for dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(ii) Application seeking directions to produce the invoices on the basis of which the complainant has claimed the amount.

(iii) Application under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr. P.C. seeking permanent exemption to the accused.

(iv) Application under Section 227 Cr. P.C. on behalf of accused Nos. 3 & 4 for discharge. Vide order dated 31.05.2014, application under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr. P.C. was allowed and the other three applications filed on behalf of the petitioner were dismissed.

4. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2014, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 26.07.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. At the outset, it is mentioned that counsel for petitioner has pressed only application under Section 177 of Cr. P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was presented by respondent at Kolkata Branch and the cheque was dishonoured by Kolkata Branch and only the Kolkata Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the cheque in question was issued and delivered by the petitioner to the respondent at Delhi, deposited by the respondent with its banker at New Delhi and the same was received back as dishonoured at Parliament Street, New Delhi and therefore, the Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The controversy has been set at rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2014 VIII AD (SC) 293. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined at length the principles underlined in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and held that a unilateral act of presentation of cheque anywhere in the country or issue of notice of dishonour from a place chosen by the complainant does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court from within whose jurisdiction such presentation is made or notice issued. The relevant portion of para 13 of the said judgment is as under: -

“13. We are quite alive to the magnitude of the impact that the present decision shall have to possibly lakhs of cases pending in various Courts panning across the country. One approach could be to declare that this judgment will have only prospective pertinence, i.e. applicability to Complaints that may be filed after this pronouncement. However, keeping in perspective the hardship that this wil