Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2255
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Raine Aluminum Private Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8039/2021
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Mr. Vijay Choudhary, Advocvate, for the Petitioner
Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP, Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj, Mr. Peush Nag, Advocates, for the Respondent
Territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be properly examined, especially when the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Summary: The court allowed the petition to quash a complaint for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the trial court had not examined the territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance. The loan agreement was executed in Telangana, and the petitioner-company was situated in Telangana, with loan proceedings executed in Hyderabad and Mumbai. The court directed the trial court to pass a fresh cognizance order after considering the loan agreement and other documents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition to quash a complaint for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the complaint was an abuse of process of law as the loan agreement was executed in Telangana and the loan proceedings were managed by the Mumbai office of the respondent, and the complaint was filed in Jaipur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not examined the territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance and had taken cognizance on the basis of a written memo of HDFC Bank. The court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the trial court, directing the trial court to pass a fresh cognizance order after considering the loan agreement and other documents.
Issues: The issues involved the territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the trial court had properly examined the point of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of examination of territorial jurisdiction by the trial court and the fact that the loan agreement was executed in Telangana, with the petitioner-company situated in Telangana and loan proceedings executed in Hyderabad and Mumbai.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioners was allowed, and the order of the trial court was set aside. The trial court was directed to pass a fresh cognizance order after considering the loan agreement and other documents, within two months.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing complaint bearing No.10154/2020 (CNR No.RJJM020135542020) titled as Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Raine Aluminum Private Limited pending before Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence u/s 138 of NT Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company who is entered into the business loan vide agreement bearing No. ABFLHYDBIL0000023104 with the complainant at Hyderabad Telangana.
3. Respondent No.2 deliberately presented the cheque bearing No.000138 of HDFC Bank Limited at ICICI Bank, Panch Batti, Jaipur Branch, Jaipur and the same was dishonoured with the remark "Exceeds Arrangement". Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complainant had filed a complaint for the offence u/s 138 NI Act before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have no more concern or relation with the Jaipur jurisdiction. Complaint is abuse of process of law because loan agreement was executed in Telangana and loan proceedings were managed by Mumbai office of the respondent is just to harass the petitioners. Present complaint was filed at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Apex Court in various pronouncements directed that when an accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, then inquiry should be conducted on receipt of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that learned court below had not conducted inquiry as directed by Apex Court, so cognizance taken by the court below dt. 6.2.2020 be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2/2020 decided on 16.4.2021.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioners. For taking the cognizance, provisions of Section 142 of the NI Act is applicable. So, court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioners. So, petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Himalaya Self Farming Group & anr. v. M/s Goyal Feed Suppliers. Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.273/2020.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.
8. It is an admitted position that loan agreement was executed in Telangana. Petitioner-Company is also situated in Telangana. As per the contentions of the petitioners, loan proceedings were executed in Hyderabad and Mumbai, Jaipur was no more concern at that time. Perusal of the order of the court below, it reveals that court below had not inquired in its order that present jurisdiction is made out or not. Court below had taken cognizance on the basis of written memo of HDFC Bank. So, in my considered opinion, the court below has not examined the point of jurisdiction for taking cognizance. So, order of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
9. The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and order of the trial court dt. 6.2.2020 is set aside. Trial court is directed to pass afresh cognizance order after taking into consideration of the loan agreement and other documents, within two months.
