2012 Supreme(Mad) 3336

High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
M. Palanichamy
Versus
Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, New Delhi & Others
W.P. NO. 9172 OF 2010 M.P. NO. 1 OF 2010
Decided on : 31-07-2012

Ratios
a. High Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227, cannot entertain a writ petition to quash any proceeding instituted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
b. Consent conferring jurisdiction for redressal of any dispute arising out of the contractual obligations will not take away the jurisdiction of the courts to take cognizance of an offence committed within its jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(-----)-Sec.138-Constitution of India-Art.226, 227-Cheque dishonour-Complaint-Jurisdiction-High Court-Cause of action-Cheque issued by the petitioner in Chennai for its business transaction at Chennai was presented to a bank branch in Mumbai and on its dishonour, the respondent had, after issuing notice from Mumbai, filed a criminal complaint before a Magistrate in Mumbai which was sought to be quashed in Chennai-Petitioner contended that the agreement between the parties specifically provided that the dispute could be resolved only by the Courts in Chennai and on a mere presentation of the cheque to a branch in Mumbai and its dishonour would not confer jurisdiction on the Courts in Mumbai and sought for quashing the proceeding-Respondent resisted it by contending that the conduct of the parties could not confer jurisdiction to any Court and when many Courts were having jurisdiction over a matter, the complainant could choose any one from those Courts and the High Court in Tamil Nadu could not issue any direction to the Courts outside Tamil Nadu in respect of the proceedings pending before that Court-Held, the High Court could exercise jurisdiction only over the Courts subordinate to it and not on anyother Courts-Even the place of return of the cheque by a banker gives jurisdiction for entertaining complaint-As the petitioner had sought for declaration to set at naught the proceedings pending before a Court not under the control of the Madras High Court, the writ petition was not entertainable-Writ petition was dismissed.

       (B) Constitution of India-Art.226, 227-High Court-Jurisdiction-Territorial jurisdiction-Cause of action- High Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227, cannot entertain a writ petition to quash any proceeding instituted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

       This Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the Courts at Mumbai. Therefore, this Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227, cannot entertain a writ petition to quash any proceeding instituted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The prayer sought for in this writ petition would virtually set at naught, the proceedings instituted on the file of the Learned 62nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai. The jurisdiction to issue a writ is co-extensive with the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, within whose jurisdiction, the subordinate court takes cognizance of a complaint. The proceedings instituted within the jurisdiction of one High Court cannot be stayed by another High Court. The remedy available to the aggrieved, can be invoked only in that High Court, within whose jurisdiction, the subordinate Court has taken cognizance and not in any other High Court, otherwise, it would amount to territorial transgression. Para 33

       (C)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(-----)-Sec.138-Cheque dishonour-Complaint-Jurisdiction-Ouster-Consent-Contract-Consent conferring jurisdiction for redressal of any dispute arising out of the contractual obligations will not take away the jurisdiction of the courts to take cognizance of an offence committed within its jurisdiction.

       The cause of action for preferring a complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, depends upon (1) drawing of the cheque; (2) presentation of the cheque to the Bank; (3) returning the unpaid cheque by the drawee bank; (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The complainant may chose any one of the places, where the offence has been committed. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is said to be committed only when the cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint can be preferred at the place where the offence is committed. Consent conferring jurisdiction for redressal of any dispute arising out of the contractual obligations will not take away the jurisdiction of the courts to take cognizance of an offence committed within its jurisdiction. Para 34