CRL.M.C. 2884/2011 Page 1 of 4 $~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2884/2011 % Judgment delivered on:29th September,2011 ROYCE KIZHANKOODAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Venkat Subramaniam and Mr. Zulfiker Ali, Adv. versus GURIND SYSTEMS P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Hemant Malhotra with Mr. Sharad Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the summons issued by ld. MM in CC No.3914 of 2011 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has challenged the very factum of complaint and summons dated 06.06.2011 on the ground of jurisdiction. I have perused the complaint filed CRL.M.C. 2884/2011 Page 2 of 4 against the petitioner. 3. Para 13 of the complaint is as under : “13. That the aforesaid legal notice of demand stands duly served upon the accused persons as on 09/04/2011 as per the A.D.Card received back. But the accused persons have failed to make the necessary payment in lieu of the necessary cheques despite the lapse of the statutory period of 15 days. Rather, they have sent a false and frivolous reply dated 13.04.2011 to the above notice denying their liability and making false accusations against the complainant company.” 4. The cheque deposited by respondent at Delhi. The legal notice has also been sent from Delhi. 5. On this issue I have already given my opinion in Crl Rev. P.170/2010 in GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd vs. Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011. Keeping in view the „doctrine of precedent‟, the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in K.Bhashkaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan & Anr (1999) 7 SCC 510 decided on 29.09.1999 is still binding till date. The CRL.M.C. 2884/2011 Page 3 of 4 Supreme Court in case of K.Bhaskaran (supra) has held that the Court has the jurisdiction over a place from where legal notice is issued to the customer demanding payment of the dishonoured cheque under Section 138 of NI Act, apart from places where other components of offence has taken place under Section 138 NI Act :- i) drawing of the cheque; ii) presentation of the cheques to the bank; iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheques amount; 6. In the present case two components are fulfilled (i) Cheque presented at Delhi (ii) Legal notice issued from Delhi. 7. In view of the judgment delivered on 09.09.2011 in the above stated case, I dismiss CRL.M.C. 2884/2011. 8. No order as to costs. CRL.M.C. 2884/2011 Page 4 of 4 Crl.M.A.10242/2011 (Stay) In view of the order passed in CRL.M.C. 2884/2011, this application is dismissed as infructous. SURESH KAIT, J September 29, 2011 Vld