Hong Kong and Shangahi Banking Corporation vs Manas Satpathy, Praveen Kumar, Madhukar Rakhkechaa and Baldev Singh

H.R. Malhotra, J.—These four revision petitions being common in nature and arising out of similar orders are being disposed of by one common judgment. The petitioner/claimant has filed a complaint against the respondent for commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He filed these complaints at Karkardooma Courts despite the fact that the place of business of the petitioner was at New Delhi and the respondent/accused was also residing at New Delhi and the cheques were dishonoured in the New Delhi area. The petitioner, however, in order to create jurisdiction of ACMM , Karkardooma Courts, posted the legal notice from the Head Post Officer at Krishna Nagar and thus filed the criminal case in Karkardooma Courts on the strength of such notice. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate dealt with this aspect and dismissed all the four complaints on the ground that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such complaints and the petitioner with a view to create jurisdiction at Karkardooma Courts, according to his own convenience, posted the notice from the Head Post Office of that area.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the threshold, I wish to state that the person who put the law into motion cannot choose jurisdiction as per his own convenience. Cause of action and the ordinary place of residence of the parties is a guiding factor for ascertaining the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. Similarly in criminal matters, the trial in relation to the jurisdiction is governed by Chapter 13 which deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure state that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Reading of this chapter in entirety, particularly Section 177 and 178 clearly indicates that criminal trial are to be held at such place where jurisdiction is conferred and not at such place where jurisdiction is created in terms of convenience of the other party. In the case in hand the jurisdiction of the Court seems to have been created perhaps for their own convenience. Otherwise there was no occasion for the petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent in Karkardooma Courts particularly when offence was not committed in that area. If Courts start allowing such kind of petitions then the provisions of Sections 177, 178 and other related provisions as enshrined in Chapter 13 would be rendered nugatory which shall be against the spirit of the law. The intention of adding Chapter 13 in the Court of Criminal Procedure was to ensure that criminal trial are held only at such places where offence had been committed. In the instant case the accused persons who had issued cheques in favor of the complaints reside at New Delhi area. Moreover the complainant and even the cheques were dishonoured in the jurisdiction of New Delhi and Therefore only New Delhi Courts have had jurisdiction to entertain such complaints and not the Karkardooma Courts. Merely posting a letter from Krishna Nagar, which falls in the jurisdiction of Karkardooma Courts, could not give right to the petitioner to file criminal case in that area. Therefore the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint on jurisdiction aspects as the complaint was filed contrary to the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Now question which arises for consideration is if the petitioner be asked to file fresh complaints against the respondent. That might create difficulty as the limitation point might come in his way as he will have to issue fresh notice for which particular period is prescribed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That exercise might create hardship for the petitioner particularly when petition was dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds. It shall be Therefore expedient and the interest of justice that these criminal complaints are returned to the ACMM, New Delhi, so as to enable him to send the same to the competent court having jurisdiction over the matter.

Accordingly the impugned order is set aside resulting in acceptance of revision petition to the extent referred to above. Petitioner is directed to appear before ACMM, New Delhi, who in turn shall assign this complaint to the concerned court for the purpose of dealing with the complaint afresh in accordance with the law.