AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—To quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 844/2011 pending on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as at Annexure-B, and to dismiss the complaint, vide Annexure-A, this petition was filed on 29.04.2014.
Respondent is the original complainant and the petitioners are the original accused respectively. Respondent filed the complaint vide Annexure-A for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners. The case having been registered and process having been ordered against the petitioners, this petition was filed for the reliefs mentioned supra.
Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the petition.
Indisputedly, the cheque which is the subject matter of the complaint, vide Annexure-A, was dishonoured at Mumbai. The complaint vide Annexure-A was filed before the Court below vide Annexure-B, based on the presentation of the cheque for encashment i.e., in Bengaluru and the demand notice issued from Bengaluru. Presentation of a cheque for encashment at/or issuance of a notice from the place of choice of the complainant are not relevant so far as territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is concerned.
The averments in the complaint makes it clear that the cheque mentioned in the complaint, as at Annexure-A was drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai and were dishonoured therein.
In the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction for the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to entertain the said complaint is well founded. The case of the petitioners with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction gets support from the decision in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, .
In the circumstances, the complaint, vide Annexure-A, shall have to be returned to the complainant for filing in the proper court, which has the jurisdiction, in consonance with the exposition of law in the decision of the Apex Court, noticed supra i.e., within a period of 30 days from the date the complaint is returned by the learned Magistrate. Needless to observe that in case, the complaint is presented before the jurisdictional court, the said Court may have to issue fresh process to the accused, whose defence, if any, is kept open, for being urged for consideration and decision by the competent forum.
In the result, this petition is allowed in part and the court below is directed to return the complaint pending before it to the complainant. The original complainant i.e., the respondent herein, shall obtain the return of the aforesaid complaint and present the same within 30 days period from the date the return is obtained, in the Court, which has the territorial jurisdiction.
All other contentions of the petitioners in this petition are left open.