Crl.M.C.1906/2009

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl.M.C.1906/2009 and Crl.M.A.7121/2009

Reserved on: 24^th November, 2009

%

Date of Decision: 25^th November, 2009

#

Mr. B.M. Patel

..... Petitioner

!

Through: Mr. D’Souza Philip, Adv.

Versus

$

CITI Bank, NA New Delhi

..... Respondent

^

Through:

Mr.

Akshay

Bipin,

Addl.P.P. for the State.

: V.K. JAIN, J.

1.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint cases No. 724/1 of

2008 and 1313/1 of 2008 filed by the respondent under Section

138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.

A perusal of the first complaint filed by the

respondent would show that the petitioner who was holding a

Citi Bank card, issued a cheque No.712655 dated 8^th February,

2008 for Rs.6,332/- drawn on IDBI Bank towards part payment

of the purchases made by him on the credit card. The cheque,

when presented for encashment, was returned with remarks

“payment stopped insufficient funds”. A legal notice was sent to

the petitioner from Delhi requiring him to pay the amount of the

Crl.M.C.1906/2009

Page 2 of 7

cheque within 15 days. Since he failed to make the payment,

the complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3.

In the second complaint filed under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC, it was

alleged that the petitioner who was holding a Citi Bank card

issued a cheque No.712656 dated 8^th March, 2008 drawn on

IDBI, Park Street, Kolkata for Rs.6,332/- towards payment of the

purchases made by him on the credit card issued to him by the

complainant bank. The cheque, when sent for encashment, was

returned with remarks “payment stopped by drawer”. The

complainant sent a notice requiring the petitioner to pay the

amount recovered by the cheque and on his failure to make

payment, the aforesaid complaint was filed against him.

4.

In the complaint in respect of cheque No. 712655

dated 8^th February, 2008, it has been alleged that in para 11 of

the complaint that collection-cum- legal unit of complainant is

situated at Delhi and demand notice was sent to the petitioner

from Delhi, and therefore, in view of the decision of the

Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan

and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510, the Delhi Court has territorial

jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the complaint filed in

respect of cheque No. 712656 dated 8^th March, 2008, it has

been alleged in para 11 of the complainant that cheque was

Crl.M.C.1906/2009

Page 3 of 7

delivered at the office of the complainant at the above-

mentioned address, the same was sent for collection through

the collecting branch of the complainant situated within the

jurisdiction of Delhi Court and the information regarding

dishonour of the cheque was also received in the office of the

complainant situated in the jurisdiction of Delhi Court which,

therefore, has jurisdiction to try the complaint.

5.

This Court, while dismissing Crl. Misc. Case No. 1580

of 2009 K.O. Issac v. State, and other connected matters vide

judgment dated 21^st October, 2009, after considering the

decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs.

Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510,

Shamshad Begum vs. B. Mohammed (2008) 13 SCC 77, Prem

Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh (2005) 4 SCC 417 and the

recent decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harman

Electronics Private Limited and Another Vs. National Panasonic

India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720, noted that in the case

before it the entire transaction had taken place at Delhi, the

cheques were issued and presented at Delhi and therefore held

that the court at Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain and try

the complaint. It was further held that in view of the decision of

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harman Electronics P