Ravi Bhushan Hira and Another vs M/s. Alive Health Care

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Aggrieved by order Annexure A-1 to the application registered as Cr. MP No. 1128 of 2012 whereby in a complaint u/s 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, both petitioners have been summoned and they rather submitted to the jurisdiction of learned trial Court on 20.12.2012, they preferred this petition for quashing the same. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground, inter alia, that for want of territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate below could have not entertained the complaint nor could have summoned the petitioners. In this regard, it is pointed out that cheque in question has been issued from Delhi where the transaction to supply the medicines by the respondent to the petitioners was entered into. The goods pursuant to the said transaction were also supplied at Delhi. The payee bank of respondent merely located at Baddi, District Solan does not extend the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint by the Court below. It has, therefore, been submitted that in the absence of any cause of action within the jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, the complaint should have not been entertained nor the impugned order issued.

Having gone through the record and also taking into consideration the submissions made on both sides, this Court finds no agreement on record, excluding thereby the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain and try the complaint, having been entered into between the parties. The order for supply of medicines might have been placed by the petitioners to the respondent on line from Delhi. There is also no controversy so as to the supply of goods at Delhi. However, there being no agreement entered into between the parties excluding thereby the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain any dispute arising out of such transaction including a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court is not satisfied that the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Nalagarh has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. I am not satisfied with the submissions that the order for supply of medicines placed before the respondent on line itself is an agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate below for the reason that the said respondent is running its business at Baddi in district Solan, within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The bounced cheque, no doubt, was issued from Delhi, however, payable by the bankers of the respondent, i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Baddi, District Solan.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others, and on the strength of the ratio thereof contended that the Magistrate below has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The perusal of the judgment reveals that the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature would either be at the place where any contract had been entered into between the parties or where the payment was to be made. In the case in hand, no agreement has been entered into and rather the payment was to be received by the respondent through its banker at Baddi in district Solan. Therefore, the judgment supra, cited on behalf of the petitioners, is not applicable in this case.

If coming to the judgment again that of the Apex Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., the same is also not applicable in this case for the reason that in the case before the Apex Court, no doubt, the respondent-complainant had its registered office at Delhi and also has a branch office at Chandigarh. However, the transaction was entered into at Chandigarh and cheque in question had also to be drawn at Chandigarh. Merely that a notice demanding payment is sent from Delhi, it was held that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction and rather it is the Court at Chandigarh where the cheque in question was to be drawn and the transaction also entered into between the parties.

The facts in the case before this Court, however, are different and distinct from that before the Apex Court.

Above all, a similar petition filed earlier against the respondent on the similar grounds of territorial jurisdiction and registered as CRMMO No. 210 of 2012, has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while observing as under:-

Significantly, petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the transaction in question took place at a place other than the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Also, petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the parties confined/conferred jurisdiction at a Court other than the one where the complaint was filed or at the Courts at Delhi, where the present petitioner resides. The question of dispute has to be considered at the time of trial.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this Court is not satisfied that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, registered as Complaint No. 234/3/2012. Otherwise also, the present is not a case where this Court should invoke the inherent powers vested in it u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Being so, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of.