Raine Aluminum Private Limited vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3223 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8039/2021

1.       Raine Aluminum Private Limited, Through Its Authorized
         Signatory Pothureddy Nataraj Srinivas Sandeep Resident Of
         3Rd Floor, Shop No. 306 Liberty Plaza, Himayathnagar Main-
         Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500029.

2.       Pothureddy Nataraj Shrinavas Sandeep, Resident Of 1-2-608,
         609 To 620 Flat B-206, Jalvayu Tower Lower Tank Bank Road,
         Elchiguda Hyderabad, Telangana, 500080 Authorized Signatory
         Of Rane Aluminum Private Limited

                                                                   ----Petitioners

                                     Versus

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2.       Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory
         Mr. Amit Bhardwaj Situated At 2Nd Floor, International
         Business Centre, K-14 A C Scheme, Ashok Marg, Jaipur
         302001.

                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vijay Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
                                Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj
                                Mr. Peush Nag

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 19.04.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 21.04.2022

This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners

for quashing complaint bearing No.10154/2020 (CNR

No.RJJM020135542020) titled as Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs.

Raine Aluminum Private Limited pending before Special

Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur for the offence u/s 138 of NT Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

No.1 is a Private Limited Company who is entered into the

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8039/2021]

business loan vide agreement bearing No.

ABFLHYDBIL0000023104 with the complainant at Hyderabad

Telangana.

Respondent No.2 deliberately presented the cheque bearing

No.000138 of HDFC Bank Limited at ICICI Bank, Panch Batti,

Jaipur Branch, Jaipur and the same was dishonoured with the

remark "Exceeds Arrangement". Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that complainant had filed a complaint for the offence

u/s 138 NI Act before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act

Cases) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submits that petitioners have no more concern

or relation with the Jaipur jurisdiction. Complaint is abuse of

process of law because loan agreement was executed in Telangana

and loan proceedings were managed by Mumbai office of the

respondent is just to harass the petitioners. Present complaint was

filed at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Apex Court in various pronouncements directed that when an

accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court,

then inquiry should be conducted on receipt of complaint u/s 138

of NI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

learned court below had not conducted inquiry as directed by Apex

Court, so cognizance taken by the court below dt. 6.2.2020 be set

aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition

No.2/2020 decided on 16.4.2021.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted

that court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8039/2021]

petitioners. For taking the cognizance, provisions of Section 142 of

the NI Act is applicable. So, court below has rightly taken the

cognizance against the petitioners. So, petition filed by the

petitioners be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Himalaya Self Farming Group &

anr. vs. M/s Goyal Feed Suppliers. Transfer Petition (Criminal)

No.273/2020.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the

impugned order.

It is an admitted position that loan agreement was executed

in Telangana. Petitioner-Company is also situated in Telangana. As

per the contentions of the petitioners, loan proceedings were

executed in Hyderabad and Mumbai, Jaipur was no more concern

at that time. Perusal of the order of the court below, it reveals that

court below had not inquired in its order that present jurisdiction

is made out or not. Court below had taken cognizance on the basis

of written memo of HDFC Bank. So, in my considered opinion, the

court below has not examined the point of jurisdiction for taking

cognizance. So, order of the trial court is liable to be set aside.

The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and order of

the trial court dt. 6.2.2020 is set aside. Trial court is directed to

pass afresh cognizance order after taking into consideration of the

loan agreement and other documents, within two months.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 113.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)