Radha N. Menon vs Neesa Leisure Ltd. and Others

K. Harilal, J—The revision petitioner is the complainant in CMP No. 404 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The above CMP was filed against the respondents 1 to 3 herein, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ''the NI Act''). It is the case of the revision petitioner that the respondents owed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to him and in discharge of the said debt, the accused issued an ''at par cheque'' drawn on the Axis Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Gujarat, payable at any Branch of the said Bank. So, he presented the said cheque for encashment in the Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, of the Axis Bank and got dishonored and returned for want of sufficient funds. Thus, the dishonor of the cheque was occurred at Axis Bank, Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam. Therefore, the Court in which the complainant filed the complaint has jurisdiction to try the complaint. But the Court below, without considering the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) AIRSCW 4798 : (2014) 3 BC 513 : (2014) 9 SCALE 97 : (2014) 9 SCC 129 , in its correct perspective, returned the complaint on an erroneous finding that the Court below has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. This is the illegality projected in this revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the finding, whereby the Court below returned the complaint on a finding of lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) AIRSCW 4798 : (2014) 3 BC 513 : (2014) 9 SCALE 97 : (2014) 9 SCC 129 .

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced the dishonored memo issued by the Axis Bank, Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, where the cheque was dishonored.

Going by the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) AIRSCW 4798 : (2014) 3 BC 513 : (2014) 9 SCALE 97 : (2014) 9 SCC 129 it is seen that the Apex Court unequivocally held that the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonor of the cheque occurred has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the instant case, even though the cheque has been drawn on the Axis Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Gujarat, since it was an ''at par cheque'' payable at any Branch of the Axis Bank, the cheque was presented at Ravipuram Branch of the Axis Bank and the said Branch dishonored and returned the cheque. In short, the dishonor of the cheque occurred at Ravipuram Branch of the Axis Bank. In this view of the matter, I find that the finding whereby the Court below returned the cheque is erroneous and illegal. In this analysis, the Court below is directed to restore the complaint on the files and proceed in accordance with law. Since notice has not been issued to the accused/respondents, their presence is not necessary to dispose of this matter in revision.

This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.