IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - cum - SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI03, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CR No. 54/2018 CIS No. 334/2018 [ENTITY], A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer) of Undertaking Act 1970, having its Head/Central Office at Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021 and branch office amongst others at Nonbusiness office Service Support Branch, CCC, Chuna Mandi, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory. Petitioner Versus 1. The [ENTITY] (GNCT of Delhi) 2. [ENTITY] through its Chairman & Managing Director, Central Office/ Head Office, Post Box No. 1, Manipal576104 District Udupi, Karnataka. 3. [ENTITY] 4. [ENTITY]. CR No. 54/2018 : Page 1 of 9 [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors. 5. Shri [ENTITY] s/o Shri Ramphal Soni, account holder with Branch Office [ENTITY], Mansarover Branch, Modhak Priya, Plot No. 16 & 17, PartII, Shipra Park, Mansarover, Jaipur302020 And also at : 102, UDBECO Home, Mansarover, Jaipur302020 6. [ENTITY], Mansarover Branch, Modhak Priya, Plot No. 16 & 17, PartII, Shipra Park, Mansarover, Jaipur302020 7. [ENTITY], Police Station Parliament Street New Delhi Respondents Date of Institution of Revision : 05.09.2018 Arguments heard : 21.01.2019 Order pronounced : 01.02.2019 ORDER
1. This revision petition u/[SECTION] [ACT] is filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate dated 06.08.2018 in a criminal complaint u/[SECTION] [ACT] filed by the petitioner for the offences u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] of [ACT], registered vide [CASE NUMBER], titled [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors., vide which complaint of the petitioner along with an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to file it before the court having jurisdiction over [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
the matter.
2. I have heard Mr. [ENTITY], counsel for petitioner/revisionist and Ms. [ENTITY], Addl. PP for the respondent no.1/[ENTITY] & respondent no. 7. Notice to other respondents was not issued as it was not necessary in the facts and circumstances. I have perused Trial Court Record.
3. Petitioner bank is a nationalized bank having its head/Central Office at Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021 and one of its Branch at Nonbusiness office at Service Support Branch, CCC, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj.
4. M/s. Pheroze Framroze Co. Pvt. Ltd. having account no. 3193103253 at Corporate Finance Branch MMO Building, Mumbai400023 had issued a cheque bearing no. 078942 for Rs.93,225/ dated 12.01.2015 in favour of Union Bank, which was forged by the accused no. 6 by copying/cloning the said cheque in his own name and filled the amount of Rs.7,36,320/ in the said cheque dated 02.01.2015. The forged cheque was presented for encashment with the revisionist/petitioner, in collusion of respondents no. 2 to 6 and was cleared from the account of M/s. Fheroze Framroze Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 13.01.2015 on Truncated Image basis.
5. The fraud was detected when the original cheque bearing No. 078942 dated 12.01.2015 for Rs.93,225/ was presented for encashment by the Union Bank of India to the revisionist, which was dishonoured for the reason that the cheque bearing the same number had already been honoured by the revisionist [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
Service Support Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi, on the basis of Truncated Image.
6. The Trial Court vide impuged order dated 06.08.2018 returned the complaint along with the application u/[SECTION] [ACT] of the petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Relevant paras of the impugned order are :
For offence punishable as cheating, [ACT] has provided the place of inquiry and trial and it can only be where the deception was practised and property was handed over. From the complaint, it is apparent that the deposit and withdrawal had taken place from the accounts of banks which are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The accounts debited and credited are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, for forgery, it has to be at the place where the same was committed, which is not clear from the complaint that it was done in the jurisdiction of this Court.
Ld. Counsel has made reference to the RBIs circular dated 24.02.2012 empowering the complainant bank to register the complaint even assuming that as a CCPC branch, it may not be empowered. However, this Court is of the view that the circular cannot over rule the law stipulated by [ACT] and the complainant bank has to file the complaint before the police station having jurisdiction. Jurisdiction upon this Court cannot be conferred by the RBI Circular.
Hence, this Court is satisfied that this Court does not have the jurisdiction over the matter. Placing reliance upon [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] of NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 666/2017, Delhi High Court, this court is not inclined to order zero FIR.
7. The cheque in question in the name of respondent no. 5 was presented in respondent no. 6 bank, where respondent no. 5 [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
had the account. Respondent no. 3 bank is the clearing bank of respondent no. 6, which had sent the image of the cheque to the petitioner bank for clearance. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per C.T.S. clearing norms, original cheques were retained by the presenting bank and only image of the said cheques was sent to the petitioner bank for payment. Alleged manipulation of those cheques by alteration, tampering or forgery was not apparent on the image of the cheques and therefore, the cheques in question were passed by the petitioner bank through C.T.S in normal course of banking business. The fraud being played came to notice of petitioner bank subsequently.
8. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the Trial Court had committed error by holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction and the reasoning is against the settled principles of law through various judicial pronouncements.
9. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) the issue before Delhi High Court was - Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over an area has the power to direct the Area SHO to register zero FIR about offence committed outside the jurisdiction and then transfer the same to the concerned police station having jurisdiction? It was in this context that the court held that even if the offence is committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station, the Officer Incharge should register the FIR and investigate, but a Magistrate u/[SECTION] [ACT] cannot direct an Officer Incharge of a police station to register FIR [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
10. Jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials is governed by [SECTION] of [ACT] and according to [SECTION] [ACT], an offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the present context [SECTION] [ACT] is relevant, which reads as under 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. (emphasis supplied)
11. In [PRECEDENT], President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction of Indian Courts when complainant was against the foreigners stationed in different foreign countries but their acts/ommisions were connected with transactions/cause of action arising in India. Relevant paras of the judgment are :
28. The place where the agreement was executed, as well as, the places where different constituents of the agreement were carried out, are material factors to determine the relevant court(s) which would/could have jurisdiction in the matter. The place where the consequence of the criminal action (alleged in the complaint) ensues, may also be relevant for the said purpose. And finally, place(s) of receipt and dispatch of communications exchanged by the rival parties, revealing deception as an ingredient of cheating alleged by the [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
complainant, can also be relevant to identify the court(s) having jurisdiction in the matter. The aforesaid relevance becomes apparent from [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT], which we shall presently examine.
(emphasis supplied)
35. Besides the aforesaid, under [SECTION] of the [ACT], even the place(s) wherein the consequence (of the criminal act) "ensues", would be relevant to determine the court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, even the courts within whose local jurisdiction, the repercussion/effect of the criminal act occurs, would have jurisdiction in the matter.
42. [SECTION] of the [ACT] vests jurisdiction for inquiry and trial in a Court, within whose jurisdiction anything has been done with reference to an alleged crime, and also, where the consequence of the criminal action ensues. [SECTION] of the [ACT] leaves no room for any doubt, that culpability is relatable even to the place at which consideration is required to be returned or accounted for. Finally, [SECTION] of the [ACT] postulates that for offences of which cheating is a component, if the alleged act of deception is shown to have been committed, through communications/letters/ messages, the court within whose jurisdiction the said communications/letters/messages were sent (or were received), would be competent to inquire into and try the same. Thus viewed, it is not justified for the appellants to contend, that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused, specially in respect of the five appellants herein, are not relatable to territorial jurisdiction in India, under the provisions of the [ACT].
12. Therefore, in view of the [SECTION] [ACT] & [PRECEDENT] (supra) not only a court, within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed, will have the jurisdiction to try that case, but the [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
court in whose jurisdiction consequence of a criminal act is ensued, will also have the jurisdiction.
13. Coming to the facts in the petition, manipulated and forged cheque in the name of respondent no. 5 was presented in respondent no. 6 bank at Mumbai, outside the jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street, but its consequence was ensued at Service Support Branch of the petitioner bank at Parliament Street, New Delhi, which falls within the area of jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street. The bad cheque was cleared for payment by Service Support Branch of the petitioner bank at Parliament Street, New Delhi on the basis of its image as per rules of banking business, without which the offence of cheating & use of a forged document would not be complete. [PRECEDENT] (supra) is not relevant to the facts of these cases. Thus, the Trial Court having the jurisdiction of the area falling in Police Station Parliament Street has the territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
14. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error by returning the complaint u/[SECTION] [ACT] and the application u/[SECTION] [ACT]. The revision petition is allowd and impugned order dated 06.08.2018 is set aside. Trial Court is directed to decide the complaint u/[SECTION] [ACT] and the application u/[SECTION] [ACT], on merits.
15. Petitioner/revisionist is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.02.2019.
16. Trial Court Record be returned to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order.
[ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.
17. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 01.02.2019 ([ENTITY]) Addl. Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge (PC Act), CBI03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. [ENTITY] vs. The [ENTITY] & Ors.