Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 Date of decision:July 2,2010. M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. And another ` ..............................Petitioners v M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. ................................Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Tapas Banerjee,Advocate and Mr.Suvir Sehgal,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioner no.1-company and petitioner no.2-its authorised signatory have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of the order dated 29.5.2010(Annexure P14), whereby the application of the petitioners for dismissing the criminal complaint no.161 of 1995(hereinafter referred to as the complaint) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short the Act) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction has been rejected; further prayer is for quashing the aforesaid complaint (Annexure P6) fixed for 2.7.2010 for cross examination of the complainant. The facts in brief are that petitioner no.1-company based in Kolkata had business transactions with respondent no.2 (with its Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 2 registered office at Chandigarh) for supplying Galvanised iron pipes and steel pipes required for export against due payments. During sometime in the year 1995 there were complaints from foreign buyers regarding the quantity and quality of certain consignments of goods supplied by respondent and, therefore, petitioners withheld the payments by instructing their bankers-Allahabad Bank, Part Street, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as drawee bank) to stop the payment of four post dated cheques bearing nos. 641277, 641278, 641279 and 641280 dated 25.8.1995, 28.8.1995, 31.8.1995 and 3.9.1995 for Rs.3 lacs, 3 lacs, 3 lacs and Rs.2,87,174/- respectively. The petitioner company vide its communication sent in August 1995 also intimated the respondent-complainant not to present the aforesaid cheques for encashment. Respondent-complainant company presented the aforesaid four cheques for encashment through Punjab National Bank, Sector 28, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the collecting bank) but the same were returned unpaid by the drawee bank with the endorsements “payment stopped by the drawer”. The respondent complainant company on receipt of information from the collecting bank vide memos dated 5.9.1995 and 12.9.1995 issued a legal notice of demand dated 18.9.1995 (Annexure P3) through registered A.D., calling upon the petitioner company to clear the outstanding amounts of dis-honoured cheques within 15 days. Thereafter, on non-receipt of outstanding dues, respondent-complainant company filed complaint dated 1.11.1995 (Annexure P6) before the competent court at Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 3 Chandigarh. After considering the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant company, the petitioner company was summoned vide summoning order dated 4.11.1995 (Annexure P8). Thereafter, the petitioner company filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before this Court. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.K.Sidharthan v. T.P.Praveena Chandran and another, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 1340, this Court had allowed the aforesaid petition vide order dated 22.1.1997 (Annexure P9) and the complaint and the subsequent proceedings were quashed on the ground that the cheques had been presented to the drawee bank despite the earlier instructions issued by the petitioner company to stop payment and even the intimation had been given to the complainant company. The complainant company aggrieved against the order dated 22.1.1997 (Annexure P9) passed by this Court preferred a criminal appeal no.125 of 1998 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order dated 22.1.1997 (Annexure P9) passed by this Court in view of its later decision in Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249. However, in view of the submissions of the petitioner company that there were other points to be urged in their petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Hon'ble the Supreme Court remanded the case back by restoring the earlier petition bearing Crl.M.No.310-M of 1996. This Court vide order dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure P10) rejected the plea of the petitioner company that the cheques were issued as a security and Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 4 not in discharge of any liability on the ground that the same would be ascertained only on consideration of the evidence to be adduced by the parties before the Court. The learned Single Judge found that prima facie the contents of the complaint showed that the cheques in question had been issued for discharging the liability. It is after ten years that the petitioner company moved another application dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P/12) for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction under Section 177 Cr.P.C., to try the instant complaint in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited and another v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 as the notice dated 18.9.1995 (Annexure P3) of the complaint was served upon the petitioner company at Kolkata. Reply (Annexure P 13) to the said application was filed by the complainant company asserting that the business of the complainant-company and collecting bank are based in Chandigarh and therefore, the courts at Chandigarh have jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.5.2010 (P14) has held that the present application (P12) is not maintainable and hence dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complaint (P6) is not maintainable at Chandigarh on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics case (supra) as the notice by the complainant-respondent was issued from Chandigarh and addressed Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 5 to the petitioner company based in Kolkata, therefore, it would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction at Chandigarh. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the argument being raised on behalf of the petitioner company is wholly misconceived. Before I proceed to deal with the case on merits, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, JT 1999(7) 558, wherein in regard to question of territorial jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 177 & 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code and components of offence under Section 138 of the Act, in relevant paras 14 to 16, it was held as under:- “14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said office: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 6 is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:- “Whether the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” 16.Thus, it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.” In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner company i.e., the drawer is based in Kolkata and the drawee bank is Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 7 also based in Kolkata whereas the payee-complainant company is based in Chandigarh and the collecting bank is also based in Chandigarh. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran's case (supra) it cannot be doubted that the complaint is maintainable at Chandigarh as the complainant company is based in Chandigarh, and the collecting bank is situated in Chandigarh and the notice was also issued from Chandigarh. Reliance of the petitioner company on the subsequent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics case (supra), is of no help to the petitioners, as the facts therein are distinguishable. In Harman Electronics case (supra), the appellant accused carried its business in Chandigarh and the cheque was issued at Chandigarh, the complainant had its Head Office at Delhi but had also a Branch Office at Chandigarh and the cheque was presented with the collecting bank at Chandigarh which was dis-honoured at Chandigarh. However, the complainant issued a notice upon appellant accused asking it to pay the amount from New Delhi and thereafter the respondent-complainant filed a complaint at New Delhi. In view of such facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere issuance of a notice from Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction to the Courts in Delhi. Therefore, the judgment in Harman's case (supra) does not support the plea being raised on behalf of the accused-petitioners in the present case. Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 8 In view of the above, I find no ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC in the present petition. Dismissed. July 2,2010. (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE