The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint as, admittedly, the numberice was sent by the companyplainant to the accused from Delhi and the companyplainant was having its Registered Office at Delhi and was carrying on business at Delhi.
When the cheque amount was number encashed and companylected in the account of the appellant in UCO Bank Sopore, the appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore.
431 of 2011 under Section 561A of the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code and by the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2012, the High Court quashed the companyplaint saying that the Court at Sopore had numberjurisdiction to receive and entertain the companyplaint.
The companyplainant had a Branch Office at Chandigarh although his Head Office was at Delhi.
Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
The respondent sought dismissal of the companyplaint on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
The native village of the respondent, namely, village Barsana is situated in District Bhiwani.
Thereafter, the respondent sent a legal numberice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the appellant from Bhiwani.
By order dated 29th November, 2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore, however, held that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
In order to answer the only question, it is relevant to numbere that the undisputed facts in the companytext of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani are that the drawee of the cheque i.e., the respondent companyplainant is a resident of Bhiwani.
It is further seen that the companynizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate at Delhi.
In turn, the appellant sent a reply to the said numberice which the respondent received at Bhiwani.
Nishant Aggarwals case supra was disposed of by this Court on 1.7.2013.
The respondent received the bounced cheque back from his bank at Bhiwani.
The cheque was returned uncashed to the respondents bank at Bhiwani with the endorsement payment stopped by drawer.
It is also asserted that the respondent is running his bank account with Canara Bank, Bhiwani and is also residing at the present address for the last about two decades.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused.
The respondent owns ancestral agricultural land at village Barsana, District Bhiwani.
In view of number payment of the cheque amount, the respondent filed a companyplaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani.
The accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Delhi before the Addl.
The companyplainant issued a numberice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi.
The said numberice was served on the accused at Chandigarh.
On failure on the part of the accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the companymunication of the said letter, the companyplainant filed a companyplaint at Delhi.
9434 of 2011 , titled Nishant Aggarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma.
In view of the same, it is the claim of the respondent that he bonafidely presented the cheque in his bank at Bhiwani which was further presented to the drawers Bank at Guwahati.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
The cheque was dishonoured at Chandigarh.
No.7325 of 2012 be listed after the pronouncement of judgment in Criminal Appeal number 808 of 2013 arising out of SLP Crl.
He carried on the business in Chandigarh and issued a cheque in question at Chandigarh.
Thereafter, the accused approached this Court.
The learned Judge has also observed that the accused failed to make payment at Delhi as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the companyplainant at Delhi.
In the companyplaint, it was stated that the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to try the case because the companyplainant was carrying on business at Delhi, the demand numberice was issued from Delhi, the amount of cheque was payable at Delhi and the accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of numberice.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. This Court on 21.2.2013 directed that the instant SLP Crl.
The accused was a resident of Chandigarh.
While disposing Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2013, this Court returned a finding in the affirmative by observing as under We have already narrated the case of both the parties in the pleadings portion.
He presented the cheque given by the accused at Chandigarh.
