Rathod Ramesh vs Raju

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 382/2013, registered against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner''s counsel submitted before this Court that the respondent herein has lodged two complaints one registered in PCR No. 16/2013, which is subsequently culminated in C.C. No. 382/2013 and another complaint in P.C. No. 21/2013. It is submitted that subsequent complaint in P.C. No. 21/2013 was returned by the Trial Court to the respondent to present the same before the competent Court on the ground that the disputed cheque was dishonored at Krishna Grameena Bank, Main Branch in Bidar District. However, the Magistrate has proceeded to deal with the matter in C.C. No. 382/2013. The allegation of the complainant is that both the cheques were issued by the petitioner in lieu of his discharge of his debt, and his mother and sister, and both the cheques were presented in the same Bank and the same branch at Bidar, issued the dishonored endorsement, therefore, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to retain C.C. No. 382/2013. On the other hand, it ought to have returned the said complaint also to the complainant to present the same before the jurisdictional Court at Bidar. Therefore, said Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter as such the said proceedings deserve to be quashed.

On a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent-Raju has filed a complaint in P.C. No. 16/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. On the date of presentation, the Court has taken cognizance and directed to register the case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and directed the office to register a criminal case and after recording the sworn statement and marking all the documents on the side of the complainant, directed for issuance of summons to the accused (petitioner herein). The Trial Court stated in the said case on 11.07.2014, the accused was present and his pleas were recorded and the complainant was present on 25.09.2014 and his evidence was recorded as P.W. 1 and posted the case for cross-examination of P.W. 1 on 16.10.2014.

Looking to the proceeding of the other complaint the copy of which is provided by the learned counsel, the complainant has filed the complaint on 23.10.2013 and the Magistrate has ordered to register PCR and the same was registered in P.C.R. No. 21/2013. The matter has not reached the stage of evidence and complainant was examined and his sworn statement was recorded and Ex. P1 to P8 were marked. The Magistrate has not yet passed any order under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Further at that stage itself the Magistrate has returned the complaint to the complainant for presentation of the same before the Court having proper jurisdiction. The Trial Court has passed such an order relying upon the latest ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, .

In this background the Court has to see whether the Trial Court ought to have returned C.C. No. 382/2013 and whether it has got jurisdiction to try the matter. It is in this background it is worth to refer the decision of the Apex Court reported in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, . There is no need to refer to the entire decision of the case. It is sufficient if the Head Note I and J of the said decision are in its proper perspective. As such, the Head Note I and J as follows:

"I. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -Section 138 - The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly the JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the Complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by the JMFC at that place however, can be taken only when the concomitants or constituents contemplated by the Section concatenate with each other. We clarify that the place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the Complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the Complaints even though non-compliance thereof will inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot be contested that considerable confusion prevails on the interpretation of Section 138 in particular and Chapter XVII in general of the NI Act. It is clarified that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc. of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn.

J. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 138- It is expedient to direct that only those cases where, post the summoning and appearance of the alleged Accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will proceeding continue at that place. To clarify, regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the Complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. To obviate and eradicate any legal complications, the category of Complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have transferred by us from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the Court where it is presently pending. All other Complaints (obviously including those where the accused/respondent has not been properly served) shall be returned to the Complainant for filing in the proper Court, in consonance with our exposition of the law. If such Complaints are filed/refiled within thirty days of their return, they shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time barred."

In view of the above said rulings, it is clear that the complaint has to be presented at the place where the cheque was dishonoured and that, said Court has the jurisdiction for filing of the complaint, the Apex Court has categorically directed that only the cases where, post the summoning and appearance of the alleged accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the proceeding would continue at that place. To clarify, regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonored. Therefore, the category of Complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by the Supreme Court from the Court ordinarily possess the territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified to the Court where it is presently pending. The Apex Court has directed so far as other cases are concerned, they shall be returned to the complainant for filing it in the proper Court.

Looking to the above said observations and applying the said observations to the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that on 21.05.2014 the complainant was already examined as P.W. 1, after appearance of the accused the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W. 1 on 16.10.2014. Therefore, it is undoubtedly goes to show that the Magistrate has acted as per the provisions of 145(2) of NI Act. Therefore, though the Bidar Court has got jurisdiction to try this case ordinarily according to the above said observations made by the Apex Court. The said case is deemed to have been transferred to the Court, where the evidence has already been started. Therefore, the ground that the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to try the case is not available to the complainant for seeking for quashing of the proceedings. Though some other grounds have also been urged, but when the plea of the accused has already been recorded and the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, the proceedings can''t be quashed. The Trial Court has to decide the matter on merits. Therefore, looking from any angle the petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.