Delhi High Court
Achintya Mandal vs M/S Chaitanya Agro Products & ... on 10 February, 2009
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3137/2006 & CRL. MA 5145/2006
ACHINTYA MANDAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate with
Ms. Neelam Rathore, Advocate
versus
M/S CHAITANYA AGRO PRODUCTS & ORS....Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva with
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes
ORDER
10.02.2009
1. The prayer in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is for quashing of the Criminal
Complaint Case No. 50/1 of 2005 titled "Chaitanya Agro Products v.
Achintya Mandal", pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate (MM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act').
2. The aforementioned complaint was filed in respect of the dishonour
of cheque No. 760333 dated 25th April 2005 drawn on United Bank of
India, Chowki Branch, P.O. Nabarun, Murshidabad for a sum of Rs.
85,48,801/-. The cheque was presented to the Allahabad Bank, SSI
Finance Branch, 3 Red Cross Place, Kolkata, and was returned
dishonoured on the ground that it "exceeds arrangement". The
statutory notice was despatched from Delhi to the petitioner (drawer
of the cheque), who is a proprietor of a Chick Shop at Murshidabad in
West Bengal.
3. One of the grounds on which the quashing of the complaint is
sought is that the Court in Delhi has no jurisdiction to try it. It is
stated that all events preceding the filing of the complaint took place
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in Delhi.
4. The law in this regard has been well settled in the decision of the
Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National
Panasonic India Ltd. 2008 (16) SCALE 317. The view taken earlier
in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidyyan Balan AIR 1999 SC 3782 has
been further explained by the Supreme Court. After discussing the
applicability of Section 177 of the CrPC, it was held in Harman
Electronics (P) Ltd. that the place where the notice served is integral
to the transactions leading to the commission of the offence under
Section 138 NI Act. In para 24 of the said decision it was held that
"while issuance of a notice by the holder a negotiable instrument is
necessary, service thereof is also imperative. Only on a service of
such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded
amount within a period of 15 days thereafter, the commission of the
offence is complete. Giving of notice, therefore, cannot have any
precedence over the service".
5. In the instant case apart from the single fact that the statutory notice
was sent from Delhi, none of the other events, which could lead to
even a prima facie view that the offence was committed, took place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in Delhi. Even the
service of notice was at Murshidabad. Accordingly, following the
decision of the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd., it is
held that the Court in Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the
complaint in question under Section 138 NI Act.
6. The Complaint Case No. 50/1 of 2005 titled "Chaitanya Agro
Products v. Achintya Mandal", pending in the Court of the MM and
all proceedings consequent thereto are hereby quashed. However, this
order will not prevent the respondent from seeking any other remedy
that may be available to it in accordance with law.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The application is also disposed
of.
S. MURALIDHAR,J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
ak
