Jurisdiction under Section 138 NI Act is determined by the location of the drawee bank, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod case.

S. Muralidhar, J.:--

Crl. M.A. No. 15042 of 2014 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

TR.P. (Crl) 68 of 2014 & Crl.M.A. No. 15041 of 2014 (for stay)

3. The Petitioner, HDFC Bank Limited, seeks by way of the present transfer petition, a direction that one of its cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) i.e CC No. 2583 of 2014 titled HDFC Bank Limited v. Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., should continue to be tried in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

4. The provocation for this petition is an order passed by the learned MM, Dwarka Courts on 29th August 2014, which reads as under:

“29.08.2014

Present: Sh. Sachin Katyal, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.

Matter is listed for appearance of the accused.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given following observations for ascertaining the territorial jurisdiction in offence under Section 138 N.I. Act in case titled as ‘Dashrath Rupsing Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, decided on 1st August 2014 (Three Judge Bench)]:-

“Accordingly a reading of Section 138 NI Act in conjunction with Section 177, CrPC leaves no manner of doubt that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the place where the offence is committed. In this analysis we hold that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located.”

In the present case, since the drawee Bank is located outside jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the complaint is hereby returned for filing in the Court of proper jurisdiction.

The original complaint and documents be returned to the Complainant with proper endorsement after taking the certified copies of the same on record from him.

The file be consigned to record room after releasing the complaint and documents or after a period of 30 days from today, in case no one approaches to get the complaint and documents released earlier.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the Complainant/AR/ counsel.”

5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that there are nearly 10,000 cases of the HDFC Bank which have been, pursuant to the order issued by this Court on its administrative side, filed in the Dwarka Courts. That order was issued in the form of a public notice by this Court on 22nd October 2008. Para 7 of the public notice reads as under:

“7. All cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act involving financial institutions will be treated as separate category and all cases of the said category pertaining to jurisdiction of four Police Districts, namely, New Delhi, South, South-East and South-West pending at Patiala House Courts, except where all the accused have already put in appearance, shall be transferred by the Sessions Judge to A.C.MM.-02 (Airports) at Dwarka who shall allocate them to the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates at Dwarka Court Complex. Fresh cases of the said category pertaining to entire Delhi shall be filed and entertained by the Courts at Dwarka Courts Complex w.e.f. 1st November 2008.”

6. As a result of the public notice the financial institutions including HDFC Bank, were filing their criminal cases under Section 138 NI Act in the Dwarka Courts. At the time when the above public notice was issued, the law concerning the appropriate Court where the complaint under Section 138 NI Act should be filed as was as settled by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1991) 7 SCC 510.

7. Another factor to be noticed is that at the time the High Court issued the above public notice there was only one district and sessions division for the entire territory of Delhi. That situation changed in 2013. On 19th February 2013 the High Court announced that consequent upon the creation of 11 dis