Offence u/s 138 NI Act shall be tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the payee or holder maintains the account in the branch of the bank: High Court of Delhi

J 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI TR.P.(CRL.) 9 2022 Judgement reserved on: 04.03.2022 Judgement pronounced on:15.03.2022 RAMESH KUMAR UPPAL Petitioner Through: Mr. Abdullah Tanveer Adv. M S MATRA CHAYYA EXPORTS & ORS. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Through: Nemo. Respondents TALWANT SINGH J.: The petitioner has filed this present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973seeking transfer of complaint case bearing CC no. 433 2021 titled as ‘Ramesh Kumar Uppal vs. Matra Chayya Exports & Ors’ under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881West District Tis Hazari Court Delhi to the TR.P.(CRL.) 9 2022 Court of competent jurisdiction in North District Rohini Court Complex New The background of the case is that the respondent availed friendly loan of Rs.50.00 lacs from petitioner in the year 2017 and as a part discharge of his liability he had issued a cheque bearing no.717566 drawn on Yes Bank Paschim Encalve Peeragarhi Chowk New Delhi 110087 amounting to Rs.27 92 650 . The petitioner deposited the said cheque in his bank account maintained with the Corporation Bank Model Town New Delhi for encashment. This cheque was returned dishonoured vide return memo dated 15.09.2020. A legal notice was issued to the respondent on 30.09.2020 to which a false and frivolous reply was sent on 07.10.2020 with a view to avoid the liability by the respondent. The petitioner filed a complaint case bearing no. 433 2021 on 09.11.2020 in West District at Tis Hazari Courts Delhi. On 27.11.2021 at the pre cognizance stage it was observed by the trial court that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint case as the ‘payee bank’ was situated in North District hence the accused could not be summoned. In these circumstances it has been prayed as under: “(a) Allow the present Application & direct the transfer of Complaint Case No. 433 2021 titled as “Ramesh Kumar Uppal vs. Matra Chayya Exports & Ors. filed by the Petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act from the court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan Learned Metropolitan Magistrate West District Tis Hazari Court New Delhi to the competent court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate North District Rohini Court New Delhi” TR.P.(CRL.) 9 2022 4. The respondents are yet to be summoned there is no need to issue notice to them. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant provision in this regard is Section 142(a) of N I Act which is reproduced hereunder:. “(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction — a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course as the case may be maintains the account is situated or b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account is situated. Explanation— For the purposes of clausewhere a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course then the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course as the case may be maintains the account.”It is evident that the present complaint ought to have been filed in the Court under whose jurisdiction the bank of the payee i.e. petitioner is situated. The bank of the payee is situated at Model Town III Delhi which falls in the North District and the courts of the said district are situated at Rohini Courts Complex New Delhi. Apparently the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in West District does not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint in question which was filed due to bona fide belief in a District Court which has no jurisdiction. In view of the above it is hereby ordered that criminal complaint bearing CC No. 433 2021 tilted ‘Ramesh Kumar Uppal vs. Matra Chayya Exports & TR.P.(CRL.) 9 2022 Ors’ under Section 138 N I Act pending in the court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan learned Metropolitan MagistrateWest District Tis Hazari Court Delhi is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate District Rohini North Rohini Courts Complex New Delhi along with all the original and complete records. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate North District may keep the complaint in his own Court or he may transfer it to the competent Magistrate for further action. The petition is disposed of with this direction. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan learned Metropolitan MagistrateWest District Tis Hazari Court Delhi through proper channel as well as to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate District North Rohini Courts Complex New Delhi for information and compliance. 11. The petitioner shall appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate District North Rohini Courts Complex New Delhi on 1st April 2022. MARCH 15 2022 nk Click here to check corrigendum if any TALWANT SINGH J TR.P.(CRL.) 9 2022 

Summary: Where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course maintains the account and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH in the case of RAMESH KUMAR UPPAL vs. M/S MATRA CHAYYA EXPORTS &amp; ORS. [TR.P.(CRL.) 9/2022] on 15.03.2022. The facts of the case are that the respondent availed friendly loan of Rs.50.00 lacs from petitioner and as a part discharge of his liability he had issued a cheque drawn on Yes Bank, Paschim Encalve, New Delhi. The petitioner deposited the said cheque in his bank account maintained with the Corporation Bank, Model Town, New Delhi for encashment. This cheque was returned dishonoured vide return memo. A legal notice was issued to the respondent, to which a false and frivolous reply was sent with a view to avoid the liability by the respondent. The petitioner filed a complaint and it was observed by the trial court that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint case as the ‘payee bank’ was situated in North District, hence the accused could not be summoned. The petitioner has filed this present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Complaint Case titled as “Ramesh Kumar Uppal vs. Matra Chayya Exports &amp; Ors. filed by the Petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act shall be transferred from the court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi to the competent court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate North District Rohini Court, New Delhi as the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint case because the ‘payee bank’ was situated in North District. The Court held that it is evident that the present complaint ought to have been filed in the Court under whose jurisdiction the bank of the payee, i.e. where petitioner is situated. Therefore, North District may keep the complaint in his own Court or he may transfer it to the competent Magistrate for further action. The Court observed that, “offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account or if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account. Where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.”