Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19409
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ALFA ONE GLOBAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
– Appellant
Versus
NIRMALA PADMANABHAN – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 1196 2022
ATUL SOHAN R. REJI SREEJA SOHAN K.K.V. SOHAN, SRI. PRAMOD M., SRI. SAGITH KUMAR V., SRI. ARUN BOSE D, SRI. K. VISWAN, SRI. AKHIL S. VISHNU
The jurisdiction to try offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act is strictly determined by where the cheque was presented for collection, as outlined in Section 142(2)(a).
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138, Section 142 - Special jurisdiction under Negotiable Instruments Act is strictly construed, determining where the court's authority to hear cases resides.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court over a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the complaint was improperly filed based on where the cheque was presented for collection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that jurisdiction under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was conferred based on where the cheque was presented for collection, ultimately ruling that the complaint was maintainable in the court that received it.
Issues: Whether the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint related to dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 142(2)(a) establishes jurisdiction based on where a cheque is delivered for collection through an account maintained by the payee, emphasizing that presentation for collection is critical in determining the right forum for complaints.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear the complaint.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2023 This writ petition is at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.290/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – 1, Chengannur.
2. The respondents herein are the complainant as well as accused Nos.2 and 4, in the above case.
3. The writ petitioners seek the following reliefs:
i. Quashing all proceedings in C.C 290 /2022 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur which lacks jurisdiction to entertain Exhibit-P3, Complaint.
ii. Declare that the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a Special Jurisdiction conferred by Sec. 142 of the NI Act, Notwithstanding anything contained in Criminal Procedure Code, must be strictly construed and only the Court Specified in Sec. 142(2) alone shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
iii. Declare that the dispute between the Complainant, Writ petitioners and Respondents 2 & 3 are Civil Disputes arising out of Exhibit-P2, agreement for Specific Performance of Construction of Commercial Building in immovable property and the delay in performing the act agreed will only entail the civil consequences.
iv. Declare that the liability under the Cheque and NI Act proceedings taken over by the contracting parties, Respondents 2 & 3 the proceedings against the petitioners who are erstwhile partners is not maintainable.
v. That by virtue of the agreement between the Complainant and Accused, mediation and Arbitration are provided in the agreement and criminal prosecution is not contemplated with respect to any dispute arising and incidental to the rights arising under the agreement.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. I have perused the relevant records and provisions of law in this connection.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length, to convince this Court that Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – 1, Chengannur, lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 complaint, as per which, the complainant launched prosecution, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the NI Act’ hereinafter), by the accused. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as per Ext.P3, copy of the complaint, the address of the complainant is shown as ‘Deepam House, Thayineri, Payyannur Village, Kannur District.’ At the same time, in Ext.P3, it has been stated that ‘Now residing at “Pournami”, Thriperumthura P.O.,Mavelikkara, Alappuzha.’ It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the cheque amount involved in the complaint is Rs.1,41,48,939/- (Rupees One Crore Forty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine only) and the said cheque was issued, pursuant to an agreement entered into between the petitioners and partners of the firm ‘M/s Thana Square’ and the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said agreement. In the said agreement, the address of the complainant is shown as ‘Mrs.Nirmala Padmanabhan, W/o.Mr.Padmanabhan, permanently residing at ‘601, Saishubham BLD.Plot No.7, Sec.8B.C.B.D, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra State, India.’ It is also submitted that the cheque was delivered at Kannur by the petitioners, drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Kannur. 7. The sum and substance of the argument tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, since the cheque was delivered for collection through an account maintained by the drawer of the cheque at Kannur, the complainant at present residing within the jurisdiction of Chengannur Court, could not launch prosecution before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Chengannur, merely on the ground that the cheque was presented for collection through State Bank of India, Chennithala branch, Alappuzha District, within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Chenga
