Karnataka High Court
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat on 5 March, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
CRL.P No. 1237 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 1720 of 2024
CRL.P No. 1769 of 2024
CRL.P No. 1770 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1237 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1720 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1769 OF 2024,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH CHIMANLAL SHETH
S/O LATE CHIMANLAL SHETH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT 1103-SULSA APARTMENT
254-RIDGE ROAD, MALBAR HILL
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 006.
...PETITIONER
(COMMON)
(BY SRI SHAKEER ABBAS M, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by B
A KRISHNA KUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF JAGRUTI KEYUR RAJPOPAT
KARNATAKA
W/O MR. KEYUR LALIBHAI RAJPOPAT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT 304-SPARSH, OPP V.R. MALL
BEHIND RAGHUVEER SHELL
NEARY Y JUNCTION MAGDALLA
SURAT, GUJARAT - 395 007.
...RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
THESE CRL.PS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED HERETO AS
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-V COURT, MANGALURU, D.K.
IN C.C.NO.1260/2023, 1258/2023, 1261/2023 AND 1259/2023.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
CRL.P No. 1237 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 1720 of 2024
CRL.P No. 1769 of 2024
CRL.P No. 1770 of 2024
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERDS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These four petitions are between the same parties and
the point for consideration raised by the petitioner in all these
cases is similar and therefore, petitions are heard and disposed
of by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Petitioner had filed four different complaints under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Court
of JMFC-V, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. The Trial Court vide
orders impugned in these writ petitions has ordered return of
the complaints to the complainant or his counsel along with the
documents available on record on the ground that it has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Being
aggrieved by the said orders passed in C.C.Nos.1260/2023,
1258/2023, 1261/2023 and 1259/2023, the petitioner is before
this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has maintained an account in Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Bendur, Mangaluru and therefore in view of Section 142(2)(a)
of the N. I. Act, the complaint filed in Mangaluru was
maintainable and the Court of Magistrate at Mangaluru has
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5. Section 142 of the N. I. Act, reads as under:-
"142. Cognizance of offences.--
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under section 138 except
upon a complaint, in writing, made by the
payee or, as the case may be, the holder in
due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one month
of the date on which the cause of action arises
under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:
[Provided that the cognizance of a
complaint may be taken by the Court after the
prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies
the Court that he had sufficient cause for not
making a complaint within such period;]
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
shall try any offence punishable under section
138.].
[(2) 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 purposes 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.]"
6. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is very
clear that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I.
Act shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction the cheque in question, which is
dishonoured was presented for realization by the complainant
through his account maintained in the Bank which is within the
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
local jurisdiction of the Court and 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.
7. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the cheque in question
is drawn on the Bank account of the respondent maintained by
him at Surat in Gujarat State. The said cheque was presented
for realization by the petitioner through Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Opera House, Mumbai, where he has maintained the account.
Therefore, petitioner could have either filed a complaint in the
Court of Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Opera House, Mumbai is situated or in the Court of
Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the branch office of Kotak
Mahindra Bank at Surat, Gujarat is situated.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.
Himalaya Self Farming Group and Another vs. M/s. Goyal
Feed Suppliers, Transfer Petition (Criminal)
No.273/2020 disposed of on 16.09.2020, has held that under
Section 142(2)(a) of the N. I. Act, the Court within whose
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains
the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence,
if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.
Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) of the N. I. Act, states that
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. The said explanation is for the
purpose of clause (a) of Section 142 (2)(a) of the N. I. Act. The
same would be applicable only in a case where the cheque is
presented in a branch of the bank where the payee or holder in
due course does not maintain an account but in the case on
hand, the petitioner has an account in the branch of Kotak
Mahindra Bank, Opera House, Mumbai and therefore,
explanation to Clause (a) of Section 142 (2) is not applicable.
9. The judgment in the case of IBM India Private Limited
Bengaluru vs. M/s. Org Informatics Ltd. Gurgaon reported
in 2021 (3) KCCR 2375, on which reliance has been placed by
learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore not applicable to
NC: 2024:KHC:9088
the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, I do not
find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the
learned Magistrate returning the complaint on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitions fail and the
same are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DN
