Sri Rabin Banerjee vs Kotak Mahirdra Bank

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 30717/2009, pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mayo Hall) Bangalore.

As per the address furnished in the cause title of private complaint in P.C.R. No. 3542/2009 which is subsequently registered as C.C. No. 30717/2009 on the file of XIV Addl. CMM (Mayo Hall), Bangalore, both the complainant and the petitioner are permanent residents of Kolkatta. The accused availed certain amount of loan from the complainant-Bank i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kolkatta Branch and to discharge the said loan, he issued a cheque drawn on Vijaya Bank, Kolkatta Branch and it was presented by the complainant through HDFC Bank at Kolkatta. It was returned with a share as "Insufficient funds". Hence the complainant issued a legal notice through an advocate from Bangalore to the Kolkatta address of the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. Further in the cause title of the private complainant the accused is shown as a resident of Kolkatta.

The learned Counsel for the accused contends the entire transaction had taken place at Kolkatta and no cause of action wad arisen in Bangalore and the private complaint filed in P.C.R. No. 3342/2009 by the complainant u/s 138 of N.I. Act before the XIV Addl. C.M.M. Mayo Hall, Bangalore is not maintainable for want of Territorial Jurisdiction. The Trial Court without verifying this aspect of the manner committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and registering the complaint as C.C. No. 30717/2009, and issuing summons to the accused.

In support of his contention he relied upon a Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., . The facts involved in that case in brief are as under. The accused was a resident of Chandigarh. He carries an business in Chandigarh. The cheque in question admittedly was issued at Chandigarh. The complaint also has a branch office at Chandigarh although his Head office is said to be at Delhi. The Cheque was presented at Chandigarh and it was dishonoured at Chandigarh. The complainant issued a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the cheque amount from Delhi. It was served upon him at Chandigarh. So except issuance of the notice from Delhi everything was taken place in Chandigarh. On failure on the part of accused to pay the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the notice a compliant was filed before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, The court has taken cognizance of the offence. Questioning the Jurisdiction of the court, the accused made an application and it was rejected. Challenging the same the accused preferred criminal appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, The Hon''ble Supreme Court observing that "Issuance of notice would. not by itself give rise to cause of action has held that the court at Delhi has no Jurisdiction to try the case and exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India it directed that complaint pending in the court of Addl. Session Judge, New Delhi be transferred to the Court of District and Sessions Judge,Chandigarh.

The facts and circumstances of the present case being identical to the facts of the case referred in the above judgment and the law lay down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to this case and therefore it is held that the XIV Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed and proceedings pending in C.C. No. 30717/2009 are quashed.

In view of the disposal of main petition application made for stay does not survive for consideration, accordingly it is rejected.