Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Kamal Kishore Joshi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) Nos. 3403, 2169, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2179, 2180, 2181, 2182, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, 3404, 3405, 3406, 3408, 3409, 3410, 3411, 3412, 3413, 3415, 3416, 3425 & 2169 of 2016
Decided On : 29-06-2017
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - SECTION 142 - SECTION 142A - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - AMENDMENT - REVIVAL OF COMPLAINTS - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE REVIVAL OF COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 138.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed in 2011 by the complainants against the accused for dishonor of cheques. The trial court took cognizance and summoned the accused. However, due to a Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the trial court returned the complaints to the complainants, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. The complainants challenged this order in the High Court, which granted them liberty to move applications for revival of their complaints in light of an amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainants filed applications for revival, and the trial court accepted them and re-registered the complaints. The accused challenged this order, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revive the complaints and that the complainants should have filed fresh complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the amendment to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clarified the issue of territorial jurisdiction and authorized the presentation of complaints in the same court where the cheques were presented for collection or payment. The court found that the trial court had jurisdiction to revive the complaints and that the complainants were not required to file fresh complaints. The court also held that the accused had failed to challenge the original order taking cognizance, which had attained finality. The court further held that the trial court was justified in issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused for failing to appear in court despite being granted an exemption from personal appearance.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to revive the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after they had been returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Whether the complainants were required to file fresh complaints or could seek revival of the original complaints. 3. Whether the accused could challenge the original order taking cognizance after it had attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amendment to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clarified the issue of territorial jurisdiction and authorized the presentation of complaints in the same court where the cheques were presented for collection or payment. 2. The complainants were not required to file fresh complaints but could seek revival of the original complaints in light of the amendment to Section 142. 3. The accused could not challenge the original order taking cognizance after it had attained finality.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the misc. petitions filed on behalf of the complainants and directed the trial court to proceed further with the complaints and try the accused as per law. The court dismissed the misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused, but granted them liberty to appear before the trial court within 30 days and furnish bail bonds. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trials and complete them within one year.
Sandeep Mehta, J.
This bunch of misc. petitions preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 by the accused as well as the complainants have emerged on account of a common controversy in relation to similar complaints preferred in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi under section 138 of the N.I. Act and is thus, being decided together by this order.
2. Numerous complaints under section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed in the year 2011 by Sarva Shri Kamal Kishore Joshi, Sunil Chhangani and Mangi Lal Purohit (the complainants) against Nirmal Nilesh and Ena Nitin Bhai (the accused). On 16.1.2011, the trial court took cognizance against the respective accused and summoned them to face trial for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused put in appearance and were enlarged on bail. During pendency of the proceedings, the accused filed separate applications in the respective complaints in light of the pronouncement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 842, claiming that the court at Phalodi lacked territorial jurisdiction and the complaints should be returned to the complainants. The learned ACJM, Phalodi passed separate orders dated 30.1.2015 in each of the complaints and directed that the complaints in original be returned to the respective complainant for being prosecuted in the competent court. The complainants thereupon preferred separate misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 in this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 30.1.2015 whereby, their complaints were directed to be returned to them. These misc. petitions were tagged together in a bunch and were listed before this Court on 15.12.2015 after service upon the accused party. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioners complainants sought liberty to withdraw the misc. petitions so that the complainants could move applications in the concerned court for revival of the complaints in light of the amendment introduced in the N.I. Act. The counsel representing the accused did not oppose the said prayer. Accordingly, this Court decided the misc. petitions by a common order dated 15.12.2015 in the following terms:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the misc. petitions praying that liberty be given to the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Magistrate for revival of their complaints in the said Court in light of the recent amendment brought around in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prayer so made is justified.
The misc. petitions thus stand disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. In case the petitioners move an application before the concerned Magistrate in the above terms, the same shall be decided in light of amendment effected in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bar of limitation if any shall not operate against the petitioners as they were pursuing their cases before this Court with due diligence.
The trial court returned the complaints filed by the petitioners by the impugned order. The original orders passed by the trial court have been filed along with these misc. petitions. Thus for ensuring that the petitioners are able to file the complaints afresh before the trial court as directed above in light of the recent amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is directed that the original orders passed by the trial court shall be returned back to the petitioner's counsel after retaining a certified copy thereof on the record."
3. While deciding these misc. petitions, this Court gave liberty to the respective complainants to move applications for revival of their complaints while lifting the bar of limitation if any. Pursuant thereto, the complainants filed applications for revival of their complaints and the trial court passed an order dated 22.12.2015, directing re-registration of all the complaints at their original number and resummoned the accused t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
