This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc.
35 of 2011 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge IV, Bihwani.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati under Sections 379, 381,411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC against the respondent.
Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant accused and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior companynsel for the respondent the companyplainant.
On 11.01.2010, the respondent sent a legal numberice to the appellant asking him to pay Rs.
It is also pointed out that the said issue was rightly companysidered and accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani as well as by the High Court.
The native village of the respondent, namely, village Barsana is situated in 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.
M 32542 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground that it is number a fit case for invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The High Court, by impugned order dated 31.10.2011, dismissed the petition.
He carried on the business in Chandigarh and issued a cheque in question at Chandigarh.
Thereafter, on 06.08.2010, the respondent filed an application for recall of the bailable warrants issued against him.
It is further seen that the companynizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate at Delhi.
Thereafter, on 28.03.2008, the appellant wrote a letter to the Standard Chartered Bank for stop payment of the said cheque as the same was missing.
Brief facts The appellant herein is the Director of M s Byrni Steel Private Limited and his father Mr. B.L. Aggarwal is the Managing Director of M s Mechfeb Engineering Industries Private Limited situated at Meghalaya and Guwahati.
Canara Bank, Bhiwani, Haryana, it was returned unpaid on 11.09.2009 due to stop payment by the appellant.
Vide letter dated 21.01.2006, the appellant informed the Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Guwahati, as well as the officer in charge, Dispur Police Station, Guwahati regarding missing of the said cheque.
On the other hand, it is the specific claim of the respondent that insofar as territorial jurisdiction of the case on hand, namely, companyplaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is companycerned, the decision of this Court in K. Bhasaran supra squarely applies, accordingly, the Court at Bhiwani is companypetent to try and dispose of the companyplaint filed by him.
The accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Delhi before the Addl.
Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed Crl.
It is the claim of the appellant that the present case is number companyered by the judgment of this Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, 1999 7 SCC 510.
According to the respondent, on 13.08.2009, when he presented the same for companylection through its bankers, viz.,
The companyplainant issued a numberice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi.
340 of 2010, issued bailable warrants against the respondent.
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.
Against the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
9 of 2010 before the Court of M.I.C., Bhiwani under Section 190 of the Code for taking companynizance of the offence companymitted by the appellant under Sections 138 and 141 of the I. Act.
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.
The cheque was dishonoured at Chandigarh.
28,62,700/ in favour of the companyplainant respondent herein in order to discharge his legal enforceable liabilities.
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.
On 05.02.2010, the appellant herein filed a companyplaint petition being R. No.
340 of 2010 in the Court of Addl.
The said numberice was served on the accused at Chandigarh.
Ultimately, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide order dated 05.03.2011, accepted the application with the observation that the Court at Bhiwani has numberjurisdiction and the companyplaint was returned for presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction.
When the respondent approached the appellant about dishonour of the same, he was told to present the same again for companylection after one month.
The respondent received the bounced cheque back from his bank at Bhiwani.
925504 dated 01.08.2009 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Guwahati, for Rs.
On 15.10.2009, the respondent again presented the cheque for companylection but the same was again returned unpaid on 14.12.2009.
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 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.
The companyplainant had a Branch Office at Chandigarh although his Head Office was at Delhi.
The respondent was associated with both the abovementioned firms as he used to bring business from various private firms and Government Departments on companymission basis.
We have already narrated the case of both the parties in the pleadings portion.
28,62,700/ within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the numberice along with the interest, failing which, he shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 b of the N.I. Act.
The question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Court, where a cheque is deposited for companylection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in short the N.I.Act or would it be only the Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the drawee bank or the bank on which the cheque is drawn?
The respondent owns ancestral agricultural land at village Barsana, District Bhiwani.
The cheque was returned uncashed to the respondents bank at Bhiwani with the endorsement payment stopped by drawer.
In turn, the appellant sent a reply to the said numberice which the respondent received at Bhiwani.
He presented the cheque given by the accused at Chandigarh.
Thereafter, the respondent sent a legal numberice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the appellant from Bhiwani.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted.
Dissatisfied with the order dated 05.03.2011, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition being No.
M 32542 of 2011 before the High Court.
The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint as, admitedly, 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.
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, by order dated 15.06.2010, in C.R. No.
Thereafter, the accused approached this Court.
The accused was a resident of Chandigarh.
On 05.03.2010, the respondent filed a companyplaint being C.R. No.
During the companyrse of business, the appellant herein issued a post dated cheque bearing No.
By order dated 12.05.2011, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and allowed the revision.
