Tarsem Lal Hans vs Prem Nath Palta

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc No. 9572-M of 1992 and Criminal Misc No. 9574-M of 1992 both titled as Tarsem Lal v. Prem Nath Palta.

Prem Nath Palta the present respondent filed two complaints in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, against Tersem Lal for offence u/s 420, I.P.C. and u/s 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that Tarsem Lal petitioner issued two cheques in his name each for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- at Moga, One of the cheques bearing No. 634634 was issued on 10-10-1991. The cheques were presented in Allahabad Bank, Moga, for collection of payment for State Bank of India, Jalandhar, but the same were returned with the bank memo stating as refer to drawer (no balance) on 12-11-1991 and 13-12-1991 respectively. The cheques were issued by the petitioner knowing fully well that there was no balance in the bank in his account. Notices were sent to the petitioner to make payment under postal receipt but the amount was not paid within the specified time, hence the complaints. The petitioner has filed these petitions for quashing the complaints dated 5-12-1991 and 18-1 -1992 Annexure P/2 (in both the case) and summoning order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, on 25-3-1992 Annexure P/3.

The petitioner alleged that he did not owe any amount to the respondent nor he had any business connections with him. The respondent was on friendly terms and in that capacity he used to come to his business premises. When he found five of his cheques missing from the cheque book, he lodged a complaint regarding theft of the cheques against the respondent which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. The complaints against him were filed by the respondent on totally false allegations and notice as required by the Act was not given to him. The complaints were also not filed within limitation.

In the return filed by the respondent it was alleged that the petitioner was working as travel agent at Jalandhar and he has business dealings with him. He issued the cheques for the amount due from him but the same were dishonoured for want of funds, i n the account of the petitioner. Proper notices regarding dishonour of the cheques were issued to the petitioner but no payment was made.

I have heard the counsel for the parties,

At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press any of the grounds mentioned in the petitions for quashing the complaints and summoning orders. He had sought quashing of the complaints on the grounds that in fact there was no business connection between the parties and the cheques were not issued by the petitioners. The same were found stolen from his business premises. The question whether there were any dealings between the parties or not and whether any amount was due to the respondent are to be determined by the trial Court after the parties led evidence. Prima facie it was made out that the cheques were issued by the petitioner and the same were dishonoured. Notices were sent to the petitioner on receipt of information from the Bank that the amount of the cheques could not be paid as there was no balance in the account of the petitioner. The averments made in the complaints disclosed the ingredients of Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, asserted that the complaints were wrongly filed at Moga as Moga Courts had no jurisdiction. The cheques were drawn at State Bank of India, Jalandhar and these were presented for payment at Jalandhar. The offence, if any, was thus committed at Jalandhar and the complaints should also have been filed at that place. This contention of the learned counsel is, however, without merit. The cheques were issued at Moga as per allegations made in the complaints and these were handed over to the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Moga, for collections of payment from the State Bank of India, Jalandhar.

The offence u/s 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act consists of several acts done in different local areas and if the cheques were issued at Moga and were presented to a bank at Moga for collection, then it can very well be said that part of the offence was committed at Moga.

In the case of T.K. Khungar v. Sanjay Ghai 1993(3) RCR 612, a cheque was issued which was payable by a bank at Aurangabad (Maharashtra) while the payee was having his business premises at Khanna (Punjab). Cheque was dishonoured by bank at Aurangabad and it was held that either of the Courts at Aurangabad or Khanna had the jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the provisions of Section 178(d) Crl. P.C. It was observed :-

"Normally the payment of cheque amounts to repayment of the loan. However, the debt will stand discharged only if the cheque is honoured and the payment is made. In case of dishonour of the cheque the debt being not discharged, the payee continues to hold the status of a creditor, unless the place for making payment is specified a debtor must make the payment at the normal place of business of the creditor. Since the respondent has his normal place of business at Khanna, it was for the petitioner to discharge the debt by making payment at Khanna and the cause of action arose to the complainant respondent at Khanna."

In the present case the cheques were issued at Moga and these were presented by the respondent for collection of payment to State Bank of Patiala at Moga. The cheques were dishonoured by the State Bank of India, Jalandhar but intimation of dishonour was received at Moga. Notices were sent by the respondent to make payment at Moga. Moga Court had therefore, jurisdiction to try the case. Similar view was taken in the case of Probathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka 1991 (2) RCR 685. The Court at Moga, thus, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. No case is made out for quashing the complaints and consequent proceedings. The petitions are, hereby dismissed.