Paramount Corp. vs Alpha Overseas

V.P. Vaish, J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner, M/s. Paramount Corporation u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"). By way of this petition, the petitioner Paramount Corporation has challenged the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House courts, New Delhi whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate dated 7.6.2012 in CC No. 71/2012 titled M/s. Alpha Overseas v. M/s. Paramount Corp was dismissed. Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that respondent herein filed a complaint u/s 138/142 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that respondent supplied goods vide invoice No. AA/11-12/049 dated 3.2.12 for Rs. 8,56,800/- and in discharge of liability the petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 515788 dated 14.2.2012 for Rs. 8,56,800/- (Rupees eight lakhs, fifty six thousand and eight hundred), on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "exceed arrangement". The respondent/complainant served a legal notice dated 4.4.2012 on the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of amount of the cheque.

Vide order dated 7.6.2012, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi summoned the petitioner for the offence u/s 138 of the Act.-

Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed Crl. Rev. No. 57/2012. The said revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House courts, New Delhi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cheque was drawn at Mumbai and the drawee bank is situated at Mumbai, therefore, Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, and Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., .

The short question involved in the present petition is whether courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. This controversy is no more res integra in view of the law laid down in Nishant Aggarwal Vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma, . In the said case, the Apex Court reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection, in this case it was observed as under:

The question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable u/s 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?

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

This Court in Harman Electronics case considered Section 138 of the NI Act and also referred to K. Bhaskaran case and quoted the five components of offence u/s 138 which have been noted in paragraph supra. This Court reiterated that the five different acts which are the components of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act were done in five different localities, any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a complaint at any of those places. Ultimately, this Court held that the Chandigarh court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the parties were carrying on business at Chandigarh, branch office of the complainant was also in Chandigarh, the transactions were carried on only from Chandigarh and the cheque was issued and presented at Chandigarh. This Court pointed out that the complaint did not show that the cheque was presented at Delhi, because it was absolutely silent in that regard and, therefore, there was no option but to presume that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh, it is not in dispute that the dishonour of the cheque also took place at Chandigarh and, therefore, the only question which arose before this Court for consideration was whether the sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action in taking cognizance under the NI Act. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Harman Electronics is only an authority on the question where a court will have jurisdiction because only notice is issued from the place which falls within its jurisdiction and it does not deviate from the other principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran. This court has accepted that the place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured has jurisdiction to try the complaint, in this way, this Court concluded that issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. In other words, the Court clarified that only on the service of such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days thereafter, the commission of an offence completes.

We are of the view that this Court in Harman Electronics affirmed what it had said in K. Bhaskaran that court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice can have jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. It is also relevant to point out that while holding that the Chandigarh court has jurisdiction, this Court in Harman Electronics observed that in the case before it, the complaint was silent as to whether the said cheque was presented at Delhi. In the case on hand, it is categorically stated that the cheque was presented at Bhiwani whereas in Harman Electronics the dishonour had taken place at Chandigarh and this fact was taken into account while holding that Chandigarh court has jurisdiction. In the complaint in question, it is specifically stated that the dishonour took place at Bhiwani we are also satisfied that nothing said in Harman Electronics had adverse impact on the complainant''s case in the present case.

As observed earlier, we must note that in K. Bhaskaran this Court; has held that Section 178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and Section 179 of the Code has stretched it to still a wider horizon. Further, for the sake of repetition, we reiterate that the judgment in ishar Alloy does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran which provides jurisdiction at the place of residence of the payer and the payee, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances and even on merits, the High court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-accused.

Recently in Escorts Limited Vs. Rama Mukherjee, it was observed that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint u/s 138 of the Act.

In this case, the complainant has averred in the complaint that the banker of the complainant i.e. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Overseas Branch, K-Block, connaught Place is situated at Delhi, the cheque in question was presented for encashment and the information regarding dishonour of the cheque was received at Delhi, therefore, the courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of the law laid down in Nishant Aggarwal''s case (supra) and Escorts Ltd. (supra). I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Crl. M.A. No. 18052/2012

The application is dismissed as infructuous.