Bombay High Court
Deepak Agrawal S/O Ramswaroop ... vs Yes Bank Limited, Thr. Regional ... on 24 September, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 34 appln 56.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 56 OF 2021
Deepak Agrawal s/o Ramswaroop Agrawal
..vs..
YES Bank Limited, thr. Regional Collection Leader and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.S. Gulia, Advocate for applicant.
Shri R.S. Suryawanshi, Advocate for non-applicants.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 24/09/2021
This is an application under Section 407 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of
Criminal Case No.582/SS/2021 pending on the file of
Metropolitan Magistrate's 7th Court at Dadar, Mumbai
(hereinafter referred to as 'Mumbai Court') to the
competent Court having jurisdiction at Nagpur.
2. The transfer is primely sought on the ground
that Mumbai Court has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the criminal complaint filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the
N.I. Act'). Secondly, on the ground of personal
inconvenience of the applicant (accused), transfer has
been sought.
3. Heard both sides and gone through the
judgments cited by the applicant.
4. Admittedly, the applicant who is proprietor of
2 34 appln 56.2021
M/s. Shyam Steel has availed financial facility of
Rs.1.25 crores from Yes Bank Limited. It is the case of
Yes Bank that in order to discharge liability, a cheque
tuning Rs.1.25 crores dated 16.02.2021 drawn on the
Yes Bank Limited, Nagpur Branch was issued by the
Applicant - Deepak Agrawal. Said cheque was
deposited by Yes Bank in his account at Mumbai,
which was dishonored. After making statutory
compliances, Yes Bank Limited has filed a private
complaint to the Magistrate's Court of Mumbai for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
against the applicant - Deepak Agrawal, which is
sought to be transferred.
5. It is the applicant's contention that Mumbai
Court does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the aforesaid complaint, since the entire transaction
took place within the jurisdiction of Nagpur Court.
According to him, the dishonored cheque was drawn
on the Bank situated at Nagpur and was also issued in
favour of the Nagpur Branch of Yes Bank Limited. In
short, he would submit that since the entire
transaction took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of Nagpur Court, in terms of Section 142
of the N.I. Act, the jurisdiction lies with Nagpur Court
only. Besides that, it is submitted that, the applicant
(accused) is the permanent resident of Nagpur and
doing business at Nagpur only. He is sole care taker of
family and unable to leave his minor children and old
aged parents to attend the Court at Mumbai.
3 34 appln 56.2021
Therefore, on account of inconvenience also, he
sought for transfer.
6. Per contra, respondents resisted this
application by filing reply-affidavit. It is specifically
denied that entire transaction took place within the
jurisdiction of Nagpur Court. Learned Counsel for
respondents took me through paragraph 12 of the
complaint, pertaining to jurisdiction clause. The
complainant - Yes Bank Limited has stated that it has
registered and Corporate Office in Mumbai. The loan
transaction, its' sanction and disbursement has been
processed at Mumbai. Moreover, the complainant-
Bank has deposited cheque in its bank account at
Mumbai. Learned Counsel for the complainant has
submitted that statutory demand notice was issued
from Mumbai and hence, Mumbai Court has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the case.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant to
substantiate his claim for transfer has relied on
various decisions. In short, the applicant in this
transfer application has called upon this Court to
decide whether Mumbai Court has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the case. I am not inclined to enter into
the said factual aspect, since the applicant(accused) if
aggrieved, by the filing of complaint at Mumbai sans
jurisdiction, then can very well approach to concerned
Magistrate's Court at Mumbai for its redressal. Section
142 of the N.I. Act suffered an amendment,
4 34 appln 56.2021
crystallizing the jurisdiction of Court in terms of
Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act. The said position is
later on clarified by the Supreme Court in its decision
in the case of Bridgestone India Private Limited vs.
Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75. If on merits, the
Mumbai Court does not have jurisdiction, then on
application if made, the said Court would pass
appropriate order. However, the said factual aspect
cannot be entertained in this application under
Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicant by placing
reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
cases of Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs. The State
(Govt. of NCT) Delhi 2012(1) SCALE 145, 2. Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh and anr. vs. State of Gujarat and
ors. (2006) 3 SCC 374 and 3. State of Maharashtra
vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and ors. (1982) 3 SCC
519 submitted that the applicant (accused) has a right
to have fair trial by a competent Court, which is a part
of right to life and personal liberty. Observations
made in those judgments have no application to the
facts of the case in hand, in view of limited scope of
this application.
9. As regards to the second ground of transfer, it
pertains to personal inconvenience of applicant
(accused). The applicant is engaged in the business of
Steel and Iron trading at Nagpur. He has availed over
draft facility from Yes Bank Limited, out of which the
5 34 appln 56.2021
dispute arose.. The jurisdiction is carved out by the
statute to modulate criminal proceedings. Unless,
there exists exceptional grounds, for the sake of
convenience of the party, the proceeding cannot be
transferred. Personal inconveniences of the applicant
businessman can hardly be a ground for transfer.
10. Having regard to these facts, there is no
justification in transferring the criminal case pending
on the file of Mumbai Court to Nagpur. It is hereby
made clear that this Court has not made any
observations on the point whether the Mumbai Court
has jurisdiction or not. It is open for the applicant to
agitate said ground before the Court where the
criminal case is pending. In view of that the
application being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
JUDGE
Trupti
