Mohinder Singh vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa and Others

H.K. Sandhu, J.—Mohinder Singh Brar filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 28.2.1993 (Annexure P-1) filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 as also the summoning order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrage, Moga.

Brief facts of the case necessary for the dispossal of this petition are that Rattan Lal Wadhwa filed a complaint u/s 138/140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section-402/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 alleging that he was a partner of M/s Guru Nanak Ice Factory, Bombay and this firm purchased plot No. R-534 at Bombay from the Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation. Rupees one lac and fifty thousand were paid to the Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation by way of half price vide a draft dated 11.4.1989 through Union Bank of India. The Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 who constituted the firm under the name and style of "Ahura Enterprises" at Bombay intended to purchase the plot of the complainant and approached him at Moga for the sale of the same. The promised to make the payment through Mohinder Singh Brar, present Petitions. After the transfer deed was executed and possession was delivered to the firm Ahura Enterprises, Mohinder Singh Brar issued four cheques from his personal account in favour of the complainant. The cheques were as under:

Cheque bearing No. 944584 dated 19.9.89.

Cheque bearing No. 847503 dated 25.5.90.

Cheque bearing No. 847506 dated 25.7.90.

Cheque bearing No. 847508 dated 20.8.90.

All those cheques were dishonoured. The parteners of "Ahura Enterprises" thus, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to sign the transfer deed of his plot in favour of the firm without consideration and thus committed the offences referred to above.

The Petitioner alleged that the cause of action, if any, had arisen at Bombay where the partnership firm existed. Respondent No. 1 had got his account at Bombay and no part of cause of action had arisen at Moga to give territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint there. A perusal of the complaint itself shows that no cause of action had ever arisen at Moga. Moreover ingredients of the offences under Sections 138/140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out. No notice was sent to the Petitioner within the prescribed time after the dishonour of the cheques and this fact was also not mentioned in the complaint. The complaint was also not within time. The cheques were returned by the Bank about a year back. The cheque dated 19.9.1989 was presented in a Bank at Bombay and it was returned with the remarks ''refer to drawer'' on 28.9.1989. The second cheque was returned on 4.6.1990. The third cheque was returned on 25.7.1990 and the fourth cheque was returned on 30.7.1990. The Respondent for the first time issued notice on 23.1.1991, that is, after a lapse of one year and the complaint was clearly barred by time.

In the return filed by Respondent No. 1, it was maintained that cause of action as contemplated u/s 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money or where the bank to which the cheque was issued was located. In case of dishonour of cheque, the complaint can be filed within the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque was issued or where the cheque was presented for collection. In the present case, the cheques were presented for collection to a Bank at Moga and the Court at Moga had, thus, jurisdiction to try the complaint.

I have heard Mr. CM. Munjal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned Counsel for the Respondent and have perused the record.

A perusal of the complaint, Annexure P-1 shows that neither ingredients of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are spelled out nor it is disclosed as to how the Court at Moga had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action had arisen at that place. The complainant is the partner of M/s Guru Nanak Ice Factory which is carrying on its business at Bombay. The plot which was purchased by this firm was situated at Bombay. The cheques issued by the Petitioner were drawn on a Bank at Bombay. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the cheques were delivered to any Bank for collection at Moga. From the complaint it is not made out as to when the cheques were presented for payment and when the same were dishonoured. Whether any notice was issued t the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the notice of dishonour of the cheques and he was asked to make payment of the amount within fifteen days. The cheques were issued on different dates and as per the averments made in the petition were presented to the Bank on different occasions. The last cheque was dishonoured on 30.7.1990 and notice was given to the Petitioner on 23.1.1991, that is, after a lapes of more than one year. The complaint was filed on 28.2.1991. Thus, the complaint did not prima facie show the commission of any offence u/s 138 of the Act.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has referred to the documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 to show that the cheques were paid to the credit of Respondent at Moga but these documents are not shown to be in any way connected with the present transaction. It is not made out as to who issued the cheques and moreover Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 relate to the cheques bearing different numbers. There is nothing to suggest that the cheques mentioned in the complaint Annexure P-1 were ever presented for payment to any Bank at Moga. It is also not spelled out as to how any offence u/s 420 was committed at Moga when the whole transaction regarding the sale of plot was carried out at Bombay.

So taking the allegations in the complaint as the same are, without adding or subtracting anything these did not make out a prima facie case for any of the offences mentioned therein. As a result, I allow this Petitioner and quash the complaint Annexure P-1 as well as summoning under dated. 27.4.1992 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga.