Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary company of M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. and is engaged in the business of importing, distributing, selling and servicing of various products and accessories. The Defendants were appointed as resale/distribution cum stockists of the Plaintiff’s goods. Agreements dated 26th November, 2012 and 29th October, 2012 were entered into with M/s. Stalco Consultancy & System Pvt. Ltd.- Defendant No.1 and M/s. Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd. - the Defendant No. 2.

2. Various goods were supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. There was an outstanding sum of Rs.4,36,15,896/- in respect of the Defendant No.2 and a sum of Rs.1,67,72,614/- in respect of the Defendant No.1. Cheques were issued by the Defendants, which were dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed. Settlement Agreement dated 20th August, 2014 was entered into after the filing of the said complaints. As per the said Settlement Agreement, the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 together agreed to pay a total sum of Rs 5,29,88,515/-. The schedule for payment of the said amount was recorded as under:

“Installment	Amount to be paid	Payment Schedule
	15,00,000/-	Within Two Weeks of recording the settlement by the Hon’ble Court
Ist Installment	1,71,62,838.00	Within 3 months from the date of recording the settlement by the Hon’ble Court
IInd Installment	1,71,62,838.00	4th to 6th months from the date of recording the settlement by the Hon’ble Court
IIIrd Installment	1,71,62,838.00	7th to 9th months from the date of recording the settlement by the Hon’ble Court
Total	5,29,88,515.00
Final Payment	If due to default, any amount is unpaid, the said amount shall be paid with interest @ 12%	10th to 12th months from the date of recording the settlement by the Hon’ble Court

3. On 21st August, 2014 the following order was passed by the Ld. Magistrate dealing with the complaint under Section 138:

“21.08.2014

Present : Sh. R. K. Goel, Ld. Counsel for complainant along with AR of complainant.

Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused.

Exemption application moved on behalf of the accused. In view of the contents of the application, the same is allowed for today only.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed settlement deed. Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed Extract of Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors of accused company. Same is taken on record.

On request of Ld. Counsel for complainant put up on 04.09.2014.”

4. The matter was thereafter listed before the concerned Court on 4th September, 2014 on which date, the following order was passed.

“04.09.2014

Present: Sh. R.K. Goal, Ld. Counsel for complainant. Sh. Neeraj Gupta, Ld. Counsel, for accused.

File perused.

In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., CrI. Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, passed on 01.08.2014 [hereinafter Dashrath (supra)], this court has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the bank of the accused is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Vide the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 19 as under:

“…….We clarify that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc.

of the CrPC and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committee, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn". It was further observed in para 20 as under:

“……..Consequent on considerable consideration we think it expedient to direct that only those cases where, post the summoning and appearance of th