Ramesh vs Jagdeep Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5452 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal Nos. 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155/2022

.

                                 Decided on: 10.05.2023





    Criminal Appeal No.151/2022

    Ramesh                                                            ......Petitioner





                              Versus
    Jagdeep Singh                                                     ...... Respondent
    Criminal Appeal No.152/2022

    Sudesh Kumari                                                     ......Petitioner





                                           Versus
    Jagdeep Singh                                                     ...... Respondent
    Criminal Appeal No.153/2022

    Ramesh                                                            ......Petitioner

                              Versus
    Jagdeep Singh                                                     ...... Respondent
    Criminal Appeal No.154/2022

    Gurcharan Singh                                                   ......Petitioner



                                           Versus
    Jagdeep Singh                                                     ...... Respondent
    Criminal Appeal No.155/2022




    Sudesh Kumari                                                     ......Petitioner





                              Versus
    Jagdeep Singh                               ...... Respondent
    Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

In all these petitions, challenge is to the separate orders

passed on 13.03.2020, whereby the complaints preferred by the

.

petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (The Act

in short) have been dismissed as not maintainable for want of

territorial jurisdiction. The respondent in all these petitions (accused)

has also been acquitted under the impugned orders from the

accusation under Section 138 of the Act

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides & considered the

case record.

3. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2015

came into force w.e.f. 15.6.2015. Section 142 of the Act was amended

by insertion of sub-section 2, which reads as under:-

"The offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction,

(a) If the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as

the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or

(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or

holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.

Explanation- For the purpose of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account."

In (2016) 2 SCC 75 (Bridgestone India Private Limited

Vs. Inderpal Singh), the Hon'ble Apex Court endorsed that under

.

the provisions of Section 142(2) of the Act, the place where a cheque

is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or

holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would

be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction.

4. In view of the amendment of the Act, the complaints

were required to be preferred at the place where the cheque was

delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or

holder in due course, where the drawee maintained the account.

However, the complainants (petitioners herein) in all these petitions

preferred the complaints at the place, where accused person

(respondent herein) was having his bank account. The Court, where

the complaints were presented, did not have the jurisdiction to

entertain the same. The impugned orders to the extent that the

concerned Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain

the complaints are in order. However, the impugned orders have

also acquitted the accused (respondent) from the accusation under

Section 138 of the Act. In the given facts, when the complaints were

held not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, there was no

occasion to proceed further in the complaints. Acquittal of the

accused (respondent) was not called for in such circumstances.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases

submitted that the petitioners be permitted to move applications

.

before the learned Court below for withdrawing their complaints from

the learned Court below in order to enable the petitioners to prefer

the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In case such an

option is available to the petitioners, they are at liberty to avail the

same by moving appropriate applications. In case, such applications

are moved, the same shall be decided by the Court, in accordance

with law. All the petitions stand disposed of in above terms. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th May 2023 (rohit)