JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. Vide the present petition, the petitioner M/s. LiuGong India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Mr. Ashok Kumar seeks the setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 of the learned MM-06, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi in CC no. 157/1/12 whereby the application filed by the complainant i.e. the present petitioner seeking revival of the complaint which was returned on 14.05.2015 in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, 2014 (3) Law Herald 2697 (SC) in as much as the impugned cheque was drawn on the Bank of India, Basant Lok, New Delhi located outside the jurisdiction of South East District, Delhi and as the proceedings of the present complaint have not yet reached the stage of Section 145(2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the recording of evidence had not commenced, it was observed that the learned Trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the present matter and thus the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant along with the affidavit by way of evidence and other original documents observing to the effect that the learned Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, the petitioner seeks restoration of the same to its original stage and that the delay, if any, for filing the application for restoration/revival before the learned MM concerned be condoned.

2. The notice was issued to the respondents with respondent no. 1 arrayed on record being the State. The proceedings against the respondent no. 5 Mr. Ram Laljharia, Director of the respondent no. 1 company i.e. M/s. Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. have already been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.11.2017 in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The written submissions on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 5 had already been submitted before withdrawal of the case against the respondent no.5, are on record.

4. Oral arguments were addressed on behalf of either side.

5. The averments put forth through the complaint in question instituted on 29.09.2012 by the petitioner herein were to the effect that the petitioner is a limited company, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale of machines pertaining to construction and earthmoving under the brand name of LiuGong and which company also provides product support services qua the said machines; that the accused persons arrayed therein as the respondents no. 2 to 4 (and arrayed to the present petition initially as the respondents no. 2 to 5) are stated to have placed orders for supply of machines with the complainant company i.e. the petitioner for supply of the same at the desired destination as per requirement from time to time and towards payments of outstanding dues stated against the material supplied to them and cheque bearing no. 015292 dated 30.01.2012 and cheque bearing no. 015293 dated 20.02.2012, i.e. two cheques both amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- each drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Basant Lok, New Delhi in favour of the complainant's company signed by the accused no. 2 i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein on behalf of the accused no. 1 i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein were issued to the petitioner. The cheques as per the complaint were stated to have been signed by accused no.2 with the consent, connivance and knowledge of all other accused directors of the respondent no. 2 herein to the complainant in favour of the complainant company which when deposited by the complainant in its bank account maintained with the HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalkaji, New Delhi for encashment were returned unpaid by the banker for insufficient funds vide Instrument Advices 28.07.2012 and 16.08.2012 with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". The cheques instrument advices along with cheques in original were received by the complainant on 30.07.2012 and 21.08.2012 and had been filed with the co