Delhi High Court
Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 15 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 15, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 335/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.1107/2013
PAN INDIA MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Arundhati Katju & Mr.
Himanshu Suman, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta &
Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocates for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 15.04.2015
In a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, petitioners have been summoned as accused vide order
of 3rd November, 2012. In this petition, quashing of impugned
order as well as complaint in question is sought on merits. At the
hearing, learned senior counsel for respondent-complainant has
submitted that in view of Apex Court's decision in Dashrath
Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129, the
Crl.M.C.No.335/2013 Page 1
complaint in question is to be now filed before competent court of
jurisdiction at Mumbai and so the impugned order can be quashed
with liberty to respondent-complainant to re-file the complaint in
question before the court having territorial jurisdiction. At this
stage, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that entire
complaint ought to be quashed as it is barred by time because it
relates to security cheques and therefore, no case for summoning
petitioners in complaint in question is made out.
Learned senior counsel for respondent-complainant disputes
the stand taken on behalf of petitioners and submits that since
Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction so, respondent be
permitted to re-file the complaint in question as well as application
seeking condonation of delay before the competent court of
jurisdiction at Mumbai.
Upon hearing and on perusal of complaint in question, the
application seeking condonation of delay as well as summoning
order, I find that since Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction
to deal with complaint in question, therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to permit respondent-complainant to re-file the
complaint in question alongwith application for condition of delay
before the court of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai.
In view of aforesaid, this petition is allowed and impugned
order is hereby quashed with liberty to respondent-complainant to
re-file the complaint in question along with application for
condonation of delay before the court of competent territorial
jurisdiction at Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today.
Crl.M.C.No.335/2013 Page 2
The challenge to the complaint in question on merits is left open to
be considered by the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.335/2013 Page 3
