Telangana High Court
Vukkala Rupesh vs The State Of Telangana on 10 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9370 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the IX Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal in returning the complaint
filed under section 138 NI Act giving reason of lack of
jurisdiction vide SR No.6284 of 2021 dated 23.07.2022.
2. The complainant filed a private complaint before the IX
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the
respondent/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs
and issued a cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh, which was drawn on
SBI, Buchireddypalem, Nellore District. The said cheque was
presented in the account of the complainant in SBI,
Dhulapally branch, Kompally, Hyderabad and it was
dishonoured on the same day due to 'insufficient funds'. Legal
notice was issued and for the reason of not paying the said
amount covered by the cheque, complaint was filed before the
V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore on
22.09.2021.
3. 0n 04.12.2021, the said Court at Nellore returned the
complaint stating that they have no territorial jurisdiction
since neither the drawee bank nor the drawer bank were
within the jurisdiction of the Court at Nellore District.
Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the XXII
Metropolitan Magistrate ( presently IX Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate) at Medchal on 27.12.2021 as the collection Bank
at Dhulapally is situated within the jurisdiction of that Court.
4. The said compliant was returned on 09.03.2022 and the
same was resubmitted on 08.04.2022 relying on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bridge Stone
India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh reported in (2016) 2
Supreme Court Cases 75. After resubmitting the said
complaint, the same was returned on 09.03.2022 on the point
of jurisdiction. Thereafter, complainant filed petition before the
Principal District Judge at L.B.Nagar aggrieved by the action of
the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate and the Court
directed that the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate has to
pass necessary orders on the resubmission made by the
complainant. Thereafter, the IX Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate passed orders dated 23.07.2022 returning the
complaint, which is the order impugned.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, offence under Section 138 of the Act shall be
enquired into and tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction
the cheque is delivered for collection through an account of
the branch of the Bank where the payee of the holder in due
course as the case may be maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) is that where a cheque is
delivered for collection at 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. For the said reasons when the cheque was returned from
Dhoolapally branch, the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
at Medchal has the jurisdiction. Accordingly prayed to allow
the petition.
7. IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate has extracted para
13 of the judgment in Bridge Stone India Private Limited's case
(supra) and found that the bank of the payee or the holder in
due course where the drawee maintains the account would be
the determination for jurisdiction. However the relevant para
in Bridge Stone India Private Limited (supra) would be para
16, which is extracted hereunder:
"16.Since Cheque No.1950, in the sum of Rs.26,958, drawn on
Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, dated 2-5-2006, was presented
for encashment at IDBI, Indore, which intimated its dishonour to the
appellant on 4-8-2006, we are of the view that the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the
promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second
Ordinance, 2015. The words "....as if that sub-section had been in
force at all material times....." used with reference to Section 142(2),
in Section 142-A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision."
8. In the present case, the cheque was presented at SBI,
Dhulapally branch and accordingly, the IX Metropolitan
Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the payee Bank/ where
cheque was presented is situated would have jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the proceedings.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside
the impugned order passed by the IX Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Medchal dated 23.07.2022 and the said Court is
directed to take cognizance and try the offence. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:10.03.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Crl.P.No.9370 of 2022
Dated: 10.03.2023
kvs
