Criminal Misc. No. M-10422 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10422 of 2011 Date of decision:-16.5.2011 Skamal Medical Hall and another ...Petitioners Versus M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint dated 11.12..2002 (Annexure P-2) alongwing summoning order dated 16.8.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohali. The complainant company M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited deals in sale and supply of various pharmaceuticals. The petitioners were residing at Jalandhar and supplied various pharmaceuticals formulated in pursuant to the purchase orders from Chandigarh. Payment was made by the petitioners by way of cheque No.326267 dated 16.10.2002 drawn on State Bank of India, Jhandu Singha Branch, Jalandhar for an amount of Rs.283915.43/-. The company deposited the said cheque into its account with its banker i.e. City Bank within a period of validity. The cheque was returned with the endorsement “Limit Exceeds for payment/not arranged for”. On 13.11.2002 complainant company issued a legal notice, which was duly received by the petitioners at Jalandhar. Mr. Puneet Sharma, counsel for the petitioners has challenged the Criminal Misc. No. M-10422 of 2011 -2- order dated 16.8.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kharar summoning the petitioners on the grounds that the Courts at Mohali do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All the transactions i.e. taking of orders, delivery of medicines/goods had taken place in Jalandhar. The representatives of the complainant company used to visit the shop at Jalandhar and took the orders. The cheques were deposited by the petitioners at City Bank Chandigarh and subsequently dishonoured by the State Bank of India, Jalandhar. Merely issuing of legal notice does not create jujrisdiction for entertaining the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. Puneet Sharma, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Harnam Electronics versus National Panasonic Ltd. 2009(1) RCR Criminal 458 to contend that all the transactions had taken place at Jalandhar and Court at Kharar/Mohali had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Section 138 of the Act is reproduced as under :- “Dishonour of cheques for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account – Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply Criminal Misc. No. M-10422 of 2011 -3- unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the dateon which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.” In the present case : (1) The complainant company has conducted all the business transactions from C-52, Industrial Area, Phase-III, SAS Nagar, Mohali. (2) The goods were sent from Mohali. (3) The cheques were received from the petitioners at Mohali (4) Thereafter presented in the City Bank, Chandigarh for clearances within a period of six months. (5) Notice was received from SAS Nagar, Mohali. Therefore, since all the business transactions have been conducted by the complainant from Mohali, the jurisdiction as per the law laid down in M/s Harnam Electronics's case (supra) would be at the Courts at Mohali. In M/s Harnam Electronics's case (supra) all the transactions had taken place at Chandigarh and the complainant company had its head office at Delhi, therefore, it was held that Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Criminal Misc. No. M-10422 of 2011 -4- No merits. Dismissed. 16.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE