Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s. Mangal Savitri Bizcon (P)Ltd., Rep. by director Suresh Gaggar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Lakshmi Premises Private Limited, Represented by its director/authorised Signatory, Swaminathan Chidambaram, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 13587 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 8273 of 2023
Decided On : 30-10-2023

Advocates appeared:For the Petitioners:B. Kumar, Senior Counsel, N. Balaji, Advocate. For the Respondents:R. Subramanian, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 138 of NI Act based on the location of the complainant's bank branch, and the irregularity did not vitiate the trial.

Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Section 142(2)(a) - Section 461(m) of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a private complaint under section 138 of NI Act, filed a petition to quash the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the present petition was filed. The bone of contention was the jurisdiction of the court to try the case based on the location of the complainant's bank branch.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case, as the complainant's request for transfer of account to Kilpauk Branch and presenting the cheques at Kilpauk Branch deemed the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore to have territorial jurisdiction. The court also held that the trial court's order was well based on law and fact and confirmed the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 138 of NI Act based on the location of the complainant's bank branch.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case, as the complainant's request for transfer of account to Kilpauk Branch and presenting the cheques at Kilpauk Branch deemed the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore to have territorial jurisdiction. The court also emphasized that the irregularity did not cause prejudice to either side and that the trial court's order was well based on law and fact.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and there shall be no legal impediment for the trial court to proceed and deliver the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.19558 of 2023 in S.T.C.No.4861 of 2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Allikulam Campus, Chennai and quash the complaint in S.T.C.No.4861 of 2022, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Hon'ble High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

1. The petitioners are accused in the private complaint under section 138 of NI Act, in S.T.C No: 4861/2022 taken cognizance by the MM (Fast Track Court -1), Egmore.

2. After examination of witnesses on either side, the accused/petitioners filed petition to quash to complaint on the ground, MM ( FTC-1) Egmore lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on considering the facts and law dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

3. Brief facts leading to this petition:

The respondent herein is the complainant before the trial court. In the complaint filed under section 138 of NI Act, it is stated that the first accused in a Private Limited Company. The second accused is its Whole time Director taking care of the day to day affairs of the first accused company. The third accused is the Director and signatory of the cheques dated 22/04/2022 drawn on HDFC Bank, Manekji Wadia Building, Nanik Motwani Marg, Fort, Mumbai issued in favour of the complainant for Rs 14,00,00,000/- (Rs Fourteen crores only) and for Rs 94,50,000/- ( Rs nintyfour lakhs fifty thousand only) for discharge of loan received towards principal and interest respectively.

4. The cheques were presented on 22/04/2022 for collection through Indusind Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Chennai were the complainant maintaining his account. The cheques got bounces for funds insufficient, hence the complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate(Fast Track Court-1), Egmore, which is the jurisdictional Court for Kilpauk.

5. The trial Court had completed the examination of witnesses on both side. During the examination of the witnesses, certain answers been elicited regarding the branch in which the complainant maintaining the account when the cheques were presented for collection.

6. The bone of contention by the petitioners is that the complainant who was initially maintaining his account in Nanganallur Branch of Indusind Bank, had given a request on 12/04/2022 to transfer his account to Kilpauk Branch. As per the Bank Statement of Account(Ex.D-2), the account transferred to Kilpauk Branch only on 17/05/2022. Therefore, on the date (22/04/2022) of presenting the cheques the complainant Bank was Nanganallur Branch of Indusind Bank. Hence mentioning Kilpauk Branch as its Banker and filing the complaint in MM Court at Egmore instead of Alandur court which have jurisdiction over Nanganallur alleged to be error of jurisdiction which is not curable irregularity but vitiate the proceedings under Section 461 (m) of Cr.PC.

7. The trial Court after analysing the provisions in the Code concern with territorial jurisdiction and the provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly Section 142(2)(a), the earlier attempt of the petitioners to get the complaint quashed by filing writ petition before the Bombay High Court, dismissed the petition for the reason recorded as under:-

This Court feels that the petitioners/accused only to delay the proceedings of the main case only filed these petitions. Petitioners/accused nowhere in their reply to the legal notice they have pleaded all this points except mere denials. The petitioner/accused having received the summons and having allowed the court take process had failed to elucidate the facts about the jurisdiction in their first appearance itself. The petitioner/accused had neither pleaded his reply nor he had filed any petition raising the question of jurisdiction clearly proves that this petition had been filed only to drag the proceeding thereby delaying