Delhi High Court
Anup Kumar Das, Sole Prop. M/S ... vs M/S Xerox India Ltd. on 8 March, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : January 15 , 2013
DECIDED ON : 8th March, 2013
+ CRL.M.C. 1397/2011 & Crl.M.A.No.5184/2011 (Stay)
ANUP KUMAR DAS, SOLE PROP. M/S ANUP'S CREATIONS
& ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Suman Kapoor with Mr.Naveen
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Vijay Nair, Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 26.02.2008 by which after taking cognizance,
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.182/1/09 M/s
Xerox India Ltd.Vs.M/s Anup Creation & Anr. summoned the petitioners
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
respondents and have examined the record. Complaint case under Section
138 Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent. Vide order
dated 26.02.2008 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance
and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offence under Section
138 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not disputed that the petitioners
were carrying on business at Kolkata. The respondents have registered
office at 503, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector 18, Noida, U.P. and Branch
Office at Kolkata. The transaction was entered into for maintenance of
equipments at Kolkata. Cheque No.233277 dated 29.03.2007 for the sum
of `50,000/ drawn on Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata was issued in favour
of complainant-company. The petitioners also filed on record cheque
receipt dated 24.02.2010 whereby the cheque for `17438 was received by
the complainant-company at Kolkata. Again receipt dated 27.02.2010
reveals that another cheque for a sum of `81,005 was handed over to the
complainant company at Kolkata. The petitioners have also filed
invoice/bills issued by the authorised representatives of the complainant
company at Kolkata. Petitioners further placed on record the
'Memorandum Of Cheques Unpaid' by Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata,
whereby the cheque in question was returned with remarks 'funds
insufficient'. The respondents did not place any document to show that
the cheque in question was deposited by them in City Bank at Delhi as
alleged in the complaint. The respondents did not deny genuineness of
the documents brought on record by the petitioners. All these documents
reveals that cause of action arose only within the jurisdiction of Kolkata.
No part of transaction took place in Delhi. The cheque in question was
also not dishonoured in Delhi as a drawer bank of the petitioners is in
Kolkata.
3. Counsel for the respondents urged that the 'demand notice'
was issued to the petitioners from Delhi. This aspect was dealt in detail in
Shri Raj Travels and Tours Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Destination of the World
(Subcontinent) Private Ltd. in Crl.M.C.Nos.1056, 1166, 1171, 1172,1173,
1174, 1175, 1176, 1178, 1179, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1187 and 1188 of 2011
decided on 21.09.2011. It was specifically held that mere sending of
notice from Delhi would not give rise to cause of action for having
cognizance under the Act.
4. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the
contents of complaint case do not reveal if any part of cause of action
accrued to the complainant at Delhi. Since the Trial Court had no
territorial jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 is quashed. The Trial Court is
directed to return the complaint to the respondent for filing in a court
having territorial jurisdiction.
5. The petition and Crl.M.A.No.5184/2011 stand disposed off.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
March 08, 2013
sa
