Crl. M.C. No.4021/2014 Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 11^th September, 2014

+

CRL. M.C. No.4021/2014

UNITED TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. K. Venkatraman with Mr.

Kaushik Gole, Advocates.

versus

CELESTIAL TECH VATES LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.D. Gupta with Mr. Abhishek

Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1.

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) against order dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby

Criminal Revision bearing No.84/14 was dismissed.

2.

In short the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a

complaint against the petitioner and its Directors for the offences

punishable under Sections 138/141/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (for short, „NI Act‟). Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order

dated 01.06.2013 issued summons to the petitioner. Thereafter, on

21.08.2013 notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioner

and other co-accused persons and the plea of the accused was recorded.

Vide order dated 21.08.2013 the trial court observed that perusal of the

2014:DHC:4590

Crl. M.C. No.4021/2014 Page 2 of 7

plea of the accused reveals that he has put forth a plausible defence and

accordingly, matter was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant‟s

witness.

3.

Thereafter, petitioner moved four applications, i.e., (i) application

under Section 177 Cr.P.C. praying for dismissal of the complaint for want

of territorial jurisdiction; (ii) application seeking directions to produce the

invoices on the basis of which the complainant has claimed the amount;

(iii) application under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr.P.C. seeking

permanent exemption to the accused; and (iv) application under Section

227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused Nos.3 & 4 for discharge. Vide order

dated 31.05.2014, application under Section 205 read with Section 317

Cr.P.C. was allowed and the other three applications filed on behalf of the

petitioner were dismissed.

4.

Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision

No.84/14, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

vide impugned order dated 26.07.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5.

At the outset, it is mentioned that counsel for petitioner has pressed

only application under Section 177 of Cr.P.C.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was

presented by respondent at Kolkata Branch and the cheque was

dishonoured by Kolkata Branch and only the Kolkata Court has

jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the

cheque in question was issued and delivered by the petitioner to the

2014:DHC:4590

Crl. M.C. No.4021/2014 Page 3 of 7

respondent at Delhi, deposited by the respondent with its banker at New

Delhi and the same was received back as dishonoured at Parliament

Street, New Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to

entertain and try the complaint.

8.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

9.

The controversy has been set at rest by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of „Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr.‟, 2014 VIII AD (SC) 293. In the said case, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of In