Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2868
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pratibha Rani, J.
Rajneesh Singhal - Appellant
Versus
Dig Vijay Seeds Pvt.Ltd. - Resopndent
CRL.M.C. 1688/2011
Decided On : 22-08-2012
Through:Mr.Rajiv K.Garg, Advocate.
Through:Mr.P.K.Jha, Advocate.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints is determined by the entire cause of action, as established by the location of the MoU, cheque, and notice sent.
Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - Criminal Complaint - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - MoU, Cheque, and Territorial Jurisdiction - 138 N.I. Act - Delhi Law Times 361, 185, 143, 2011 SCC 772, 2009 SCC 720, 2010 DLT 51 - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction in relation to the MoU, cheque, and notice sent, referencing various judgments. It concluded that the entire cause of action had arisen in Uttrakhand, and the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction. The complaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a criminal complaint and summoning order, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi. The complaint alleged dishonor of a cheque given as security, with the petitioner emphasizing the execution and location of the MoU in Uttrakhand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entire cause of action had arisen in Uttrakhand, and the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Issues: The issues involved the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts in relation to the MoU, cheque, and notice sent by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that the entire cause of action had arisen in Uttrakhand, and the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of, directing the learned M.M. to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation to the appropriate territorial jurisdiction.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.3193/1 titled M/s. Dig Vijay Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajneesh Singhal and the summoning order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned M.M. in the said complaint.
2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order mainly on the ground that the Courts at Delhi lack the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The second ground, on which quashing has been sought, is that the cheque in question was given as a security in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2010 and after communicating to the complainant vide letter dated 06.10.2010 that the MoU has become redundant, the complainant was asked to return the cheque. However, he dishonestly presented the same with his banker which was dishonoured.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent which entered appearance through its counsel.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records as well as the impugned order. I have also perused the brief synopsis filed by the parties.
5. Perusal of the complaint dated 30.11.2010, which is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the present petition, reveals that after referring to the details of the transaction between the parties and execution of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2010, to show that the Courts at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction, necessary averments were made in paragraph-18 of the complaint as under:-
“18. That the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties at the head office of the complainant and the cheque in dispute was issued by the accused at the office of the complainant to the complainant at Delhi and the same was placed for encashment through its account at Syndicate Bank, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi and later on dishonoured by the accused bank of the accused. The complainant had its head office at 9(II) Sagar Apartment, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi which is situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi and the Hon”ble Court of Police Station Tilak Marg, Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain, try and punish the accused as per law.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the MoU dated 27.01.2010 executed between the parties which shows that the stamp paper was purchased from Uttrakhand; the petitioner is resident of Uttrakhand; the cheque in question was drawn on Bank of Baroda at Dehradun. Not only that, the land transacted between the parties is also situated in Uttrakhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the last paragraph of the MoU dated 27.01.2010 which reads as under:-
“In WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set their respective hands to this agreement on the date, month and the year first mentioned above at Dehradun.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the alleged notice is also addressed to the petitioner at Dehradun. It has been urged that mere sending of notice from Delhi or office of the complainant/respondent being situated at Delhi is not sufficient to confer the territorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi, hence the complaint as well as the summoning order may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) III(2011) BC 180 Ramaswamy S. Iyengar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(ii) 2011(6) AD (Delhi) 143 Grandlay Electricals (India) vs. ESS ESS Enterprises & Ors.
(iii) 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 361 Mahika Enterprises & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(iv) 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 185 Religare Finvest Ltd. vs. State and Anr.
(v) (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 720 Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
(vi) 71 (2010) DLT 51
(vii) (2011) 2 SCC 772
8. On behalf of the respondent, it has been submitted that the MoU has been signed by witness Gajanand Agarwal who is resident of D-317, Nir
