Crlmc3309.09 & 3334.09

Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl.M.C.3309/2009 & Crl.M.C.3334/2009

%

Date of Order : 24^th February, 2010

#

LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILES

..... Appellant

! Through: Mr.Arvind Chaudhary, Adv.

versus

$

INDIABULLS CREDIT SERVISES LTD. &.... Respondent

^

Through: Mr.Sanjay Abbot, Advocate for

Respondent No.2.

*

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

No

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

No

3.

Whether the judgment should be

No

reported in the Digest?

: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1.

This is a petition seeking quashing of the criminal

complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Quashing has been sought primarily

on the ground that Delhi Court does not have jurisdiction to

entertain and try the complaint.

2010:DHC:1147

Crlmc3309.09 & 3334.09

Page 2 of 8

2.

There are five essential ingredients of offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: (i) drawing of

the cheque, (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank of the

payee, (iii) return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank,

(iv) giving of notice to the drawer of the cheque demanding

payment of the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to

make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

3.

This is not the case of the complainant that cheque in

question was issued and delivered to it in Delhi. There is no

such allegation to this effect in the complaint and during the

course of arguments also no such stand was taken by the

learned counsel for the complainant. It is an admitted case

that the petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and does not have

either a residence or a place of work in Delhi. It is an admitted

case that cheque in question was drawn on a bank in Mumbai

and was dishonoured by that bank at Mumbai. It is also an

admitted position that the notice of demand though issued

from Delhi was sent to the petitioner at Mumbai. This is

nowhere the case of the complainant that the notice of demand

was served upon the petitioner in Delhi.

2010:DHC:1147

Crlmc3309.09 & 3334.09

Page 3 of 8

4.

The averments made in the complaint show that according

to the complainant, cheque issued by the petitioner/respondent

was deposited by it with HDFC Bank, New Delhi and the Notice

of Demand was also issued from Delhi.

5.

The question whether issue of Notice of Demand from Delhi

to a person who resides and works for gain outside Delhi came

up for consideration before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

„Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National

Panasonic India Private Limited’, (2009) 1 SCC 720. In that

case, the appellant was carrying business at Chandigarh. The

complainant had its head office at Delhi and a branch office at

Chandigarh. The cheque in question was issued, presented

and dishonoured at Chandigarh. The respondent/complainant

issued notice to the appellant from Delhi. The notice was

served upon the appellant at Chandigarh. On failure of the

appellant to pay the amount of the cheque, a complaint was

filed at Delhi. An application filed by the appellant questioning

jurisdiction of the court at New Delhi was dismissed on the

ground that since the notice was sent by the complainant from

Delhi, the appellant had failed to make payment at Delhi and

the respondent was carrying out business at Delhi, the Delhi

2010:DHC:1147

Crlmc3309.09 & 3334.09

Page 4 of 8

court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

6.

As regard, issue of notice from Delhi, Hon‟ble Supreme

Court held that issuance of notice would not by itself give rise

to a cause of action but communication of notice would give.

The Hon‟ble Court was of the view that for constituting offence

u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the notic