Delhi High Court
Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Vardhman Precision Profiles & ... on 24 September, 2014
Author: S. Muralidhar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
35
+ TR.P.(CRL.) 68 of 2014
HDFC BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Harsh Sinha and Ms. Swati Goswami,
Advocates.
versus
VARDHMAN PRECISION PROFILES
& TUBES P. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER
% 24.09.2014
Crl.M.A. No. 15042 of 2014 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
TR.P. (Crl) 68 of 2014 & Crl.M.A. No. 15041 of 2014 (for stay)
3. The Petitioner, HDFC Bank Limited, seeks by way of the present
transfer petition, a direction that one of its cases under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 („NI Act‟) i.e CC No. 2583 of 2014
titled HDFC Bank Limited v. Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes
Pvt. Ltd., should continue to be tried in the Court of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
4. The provocation for this petition is an order passed by the learned
MM, Dwarka Courts on 29th August 2014, which reads as under:
"29.08.2014
Present: Sh. Sachin Katyal, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Matter is listed for appearance of the accused.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has given following
observations for ascertaining the territorial jurisdiction in
offence under Section 138 N.I. Act in case titled as
'Dashrath Rupsing Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
[Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, decided on 1 st August
2014 (Three Judge Bench)]:-
"Accordingly a reading of Section 138 NI Act in
conjunction with Section 177, CrPC leaves no
manner of doubt that the return of the cheque by the
drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the
offence and indicates the place where the offence is
committed. In this analysis we hold that the place, situs
or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must
logically be restricted to where the drawee bank, is
located."
In the present case, since the drawee Bank is located outside
jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the complaint is hereby
returned for filing in the Court of proper jurisdiction.
The original complaint and documents be returned to the
Complainant with proper endorsement after taking the
certified copies of the same on record from him.
The file be consigned to record room after releasing the
complaint and documents or after a period of 30 days from
today, in case no one approaches to get the complaint and
documents released earlier.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the Complainant/AR/
counsel."
5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, submits that there are nearly 10,000 cases of the HDFC Bank
which have been, pursuant to the order issued by this Court on its
administrative side, filed in the Dwarka Courts. That order was issued in
the form of a public notice by this Court on 22nd October 2008. Para 7 of
the public notice reads as under:
"7. All cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
involving financial institutions will be treated as separate
category and all cases of the said category pertaining to
jurisdiction of four Police Districts, namely, New Delhi,
South, South-East and South-West pending at Patiala House
Courts, except where all the accused have already put in
appearance, shall be transferred by the Sessions Judge to
A.C.MM.-02 (Airports) at Dwarka who shall allocate them to
the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates at Dwarka Court
Complex. Fresh cases of the said category pertaining to entire
Delhi shall be filed and entertained by the Courts at Dwarka
Courts Complex w.e.f. 1st November 2008."
6. As a result of the public notice the financial institutions including
HDFC Bank, were filing their criminal cases under Section 138 NI Act
in the Dwarka Courts. At the time when the above public notice was
issued, the law concerning the appropriate Court where the complaint
under Section 138 NI Act should be filed as was as settled by the
Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1991) 7
SCC 510.
7. Another factor to be noticed is that at the time the High Court issued
the above public notice there was only one district and sessions division
for the entire territory of Delhi. That situation changed in 2013. On 19th
February 2013 the High Court announced that consequent upon the
creation of 11 district/sessions divisions/metropolitan areas by the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD‟) the cases
of a particular sessions division should be transferred to the respective
courts. The further order was, however, silent as regards the cases of
financial institutions. This Court by an order dated 10th February 2014 in
Transfer (Criminal) Petition No. 7 of 2014 (Indian Technomac
Company Private Limited v. State) highlighted the anomaly this created.
Nevertheless, in that case, the complaint was directed to be transferred
from the Dwarka Court to the court of appropriate jurisdiction.
8. The situation has now undergone a further change as a result of the
recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCALE
97. It has now been clarified that a complaint under Section 138 of the
NI Act is maintainable only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the
drawee bank is located. As regards pending cases, the Supreme Court
has in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) clarified that "only those
cases where, post the summoning and appearance of the alleged
Accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in
Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will proceeding
continue at that place." Admittedly, in the case at hand the stage of such
recording of evidence under Section 145 (2) of the NI Act has not been
reached. Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been
committed by the learned MM in following the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) and returning the
complaint for being filed in the appropriate Court.
9. Mr. Krishnan urges that till such time the High Court on
administrative side does not further clarify the position, the earlier
arrangement put in place by way of public notice dated 22nd October
2008 should continue. The Court is unable to accept the above
submission. In view of the law explained by the Supreme Court in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), which has been correctly followed
by the learned trial Court in the instant case, the direction issued by the
High Court on the administrative side cannot obviously continue to
operate.
10. The petition and the pending application are dismissed.
11. Order be given dasti.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Rk
