CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 22.12.2011 G.Ningi Reddy and another ...Petitioners Versus M/s Indo Farm Industries Limited .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Chhibber, Advocate, for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No.15435 of 2010 dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and the summoning order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the Courts at Chandigarh do not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint filed by the respondent as the petitioners neither works for gain nor reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. The cheque was drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar (Andhra Pradesh) and the cheque was also dishonoured at Mahabubnagar (Andhra Pradesh). Since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts at Chandigarh, the complaint and the summoning order cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, counsel for the CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 -2- petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and another Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009(1) P.L.R., 525, judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Som Sugandh Industries Ltd. and another Vs. UOI and another, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 608, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Bansal and others, 2009(4) P.L.R., 28 (Delhi Section) and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Modi Vs. M/s Euro Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2010(4) Criminal Court Cases, 868. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while referring to para 12 of the complaint, submits that the transaction for which the cheque was issued, was in fact received by the complainant at its Chandigarh office and the same was presented for encashment at Canara Bank, Sector 44, Chandigarh and the cheque was returned as dishonoured also at Chandigarh. He on this basis contends that the Courts at Chandigarh have the territorial jurisdiction and the trial Court has rightly summoned the petitioners on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, JT 1999 (7) SC, 558 and a judgment of this Court in CRM No.M-35032 of 2010 titled as H.S.Dhingra Vs. M/s Amit Enterprises, Anandpuri Colony decided on 30.11.2010 (Annexure R-2). On this basis it is contended that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. The only ground on which the challenge has been made to the complaint and the summoning order by the petitioner, is that no cause of CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 -3- action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts at Chandigarh, which in my considered view, is devoid of any merit in the light of the specific allegations made by the complainant in the impugned complaint in para 12, where it has been stated as follows:- “12) That the complainant company used to receive orders from the accused-defendants concern at Chandigarh and all the supply of their orders were executed and routed through it's Chandigarh office and the above said Cheque No.682904 dated 19.12.2008 amounting to Rs.13,32,414/- (Rupees Thirteen Laksh Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen only) which had been dishonoured by the Accused-Defendants bankers had also been received by the complainant at it's Chandigarh office and the same had been presented for an encashment to Canara Bank, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh, for deposit into its CC A/c No.5146 and the same had also been returned as dishonoured at Chandigarh. Hence an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been committed within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court and the presented Learned Court is competent to try the present complaint filed before it with the said offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by exercising its appropriate jurisdiction.” This fact has not been disputed by the petitioners in their present petition. The jurisdiction of the trial Court at Chandigarh is, therefore, clearly made out. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner do not help the claim of the petitioners as in all those cases what has been considered by the Court was that merely because legal notices have been served on the drawee of the cheque from a particular place, that Court would not be conferred with the territorial jurisdiction. Rather the judgments cited above by the counsel for the petitioners go against the case of the petitioners as in the present case, it is the contention of the complainant that the transaction for which the cheque was issued had taken place at Chandigarh and the cheque was CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 -4- also issued at Chandigarh apart from the presentation of the cheque and the receipt of report with regard to dishonour of the cheque. This Court in the case of H.S.Dhingra (supra) had an occasion to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners and K.Bhaskara's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondent and on consideration thereof following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720 to contend that the Court at Ludhiana will not have any jurisdiction in the present case and that the Gurgaon Court will have jurisdiction as the cheque which is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner pertains to a Bank situated at Gurgaon. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the argument. In the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, (1999) 7 SCC 510, it was held that the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts, namely, (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. It was opined that if 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 and the complainant would be at liberty to file a compliant petition at any of those places. However, in Harman Electronics case (supra), it was clarified that mere issuance of a notice from one place will not confer jurisdiction in the Courts of that place to file a CRM No.M-28199 of 2010 -5- complaint. In the present case, the cheque was presented by the complainant at Ludhiana; the complainant runs his business at Ludhiana; the cheque was presented for clearance at Ludhiana; the memo indicating that payment had been stopped by the drawer was sent to the complainant at Ludhiana by his banker at Ludhiana. In view of above circumstances, it cannot be held that the Court at Ludhiana will not have jurisdiction to try the complaint. Petition is thus, dismissed.” I am in full agreement with the conclusions drawn by this Court in the above reproduced judgment. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the criminal courts at Chandigarh have no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Accordingly the present petition stands dismissed. 22.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE