THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2212 OF 2008 Date: 25.11.2011 Between: K.B.Usha Rani …..Petitioner And Model Chit Corporation Limited, Model House, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager (Legal) and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2212 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, the learned counsel for ﬁrst respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.439 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally (trial court). The oﬀence alleged against the petitioner in the said case is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act). She ﬁled this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the above case. 3. The main plea of the petitioner is that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case in question as it lacks territorial jurisdiction. Elaborating on this plea, the petitioner says that the cheque in question was issued by her on 22.2.2007 at Hindupur in connection with certain amounts due from her in respect of a chit fund transaction to the complainant’s branch at Hindupur. The further version of the petitioner is that since the cheque in question was issued at Hindupur in connection with the chit fund transactions with the complainant’s branch at Hindupur, the complainant cannot bring the complaint in the trial court which is at Hyderabad by creating a cause of action by issuing notice under the Act from Hyderabad and therefore the complaint should be quashed. Per contra, the plea of the complainant is that its Hindupur branch was closed in the year 2005 and in connection with the balances due from her, the petitioner/accused gave the cheque in question in its oﬃce at Hyderabad. It must be noted here that it is specifically averred so in para 11 of the complaint. 4. Sri V.Srinivas relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited[1] in support of his contention that where all the transactions relating to issuance of cheque have taken place at a particular place the complainant cannot issue notice from another place and ﬁle a complaint there. In the aforesaid case it was found that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh and therefore a complaint cannot be ﬁled in the court at Delhi just by reason of issuing legal notice from Delhi. There is no dispute about this proposition. 5. It may however be noted that as pointed out by the learned counsel for complainant, the petitioner herself filed a suit i.e. O.S.No.10 of 2008 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur against the Assistant Manager of the complainant’s company at Hyderabad for recovery of certain amounts and in that plaint in para 2 thereof, the petitioner averred that in the middle of the year 2005 the Hindupur branch of the complaint company was closed. Thus on her own admission or averment in the above plaint it can be said that the complainant’s branch at Hindupur was closed by the year 2005. The present cheque in question was issued on 22.2.2007 and in para 11 of the complaint it is speciﬁcally averred that the cheque in question was issued and delivered to the complainant in its oﬃce at Hyderabad. Having regard to the averment of the petitioner that the complainant’s branch at Hindupur was closed in the year 2005, it follows that the plea of the complainant in its complaint that the cheque in question was issued to it at Hyderabad for the purposes of this petition that has to be accepted. 6. Sri V.Srinivas pointed out that the petitioner has denied the very issuance of the cheque in question and also the subsisting liability but those questions have to be decided by the trial court and they cannot be gone into in this petition. He also raised a dispute about the place where the cheque in question was issued and he says that it was issued at Hindupur but this is disputed. However strictly going by the averments in the complaint and, as already mentioned, the admission of the petitioner about the closure of the Hindupur branch of the complainant in 2005, I am of the opinion that the complaint can be entertained at Hyderabad on the basis of the averments in it and going by them it can prima facie be said that the cause of action has arisen at Hyderabad for the case. Thus the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable here and cannot help the complainant’s case. In the circumstances it will be diﬃcult to decide about the question of territorial jurisdiction in this petition. 7. Accordingly the relief for quashing the complaint is rejected. It goes without saying that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all her pleas before the trial court including the plea of lack of jurisdiction. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner is a lady and she cannot attend the trial court for every date of hearing as she has got her own problems. In the circumstances, the presence of the petitioner for every date of hearing before the trial Court is dispensed with subject of-course to the power of the trial court to summon her presence as and when it considers it necessary. 8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 25th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2212 OF 2008 DATE: 25.11.2011 [1] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 720