PATIALA CASTING P LTD Vs. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners sought quashing of criminal complaint no.3360 of 2008 under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended by the Banking Public Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Law(amendment) 1988 (66 of 1988) and quashing of summoning order dated 24th December 2008 made against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on the ground that the learned MM had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(2.) The complainant (respondent herein) was given the cheque in question payable at Bank of Baroda, SSI Mandi, Gobindgarh, Punjab. The complainant deposited this cheque with their banker Punjab National Bank, Partap Ganj Branch, Delhi, since the complainant was having its head office and registered office at Delhi. The cheque got dishonoured and was returned back unpaid by the banker of the petitioners on account of "exceeds arrangements". A demand notice demanding the cheque amount was sent by respondent (complainant) from his head office at Delhi and despite notice the cheque amount was not paid. On this basis, a complaint was filed in Delhi. The petitioners allege that the complaint was not maintainable in Delhi as no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi and the complaint was an abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted by the petitioners that the term bank? as referred in Section 138 proviso (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act would mean drawers bank and not the collector bank. The issue of notice from Delhi should also not give jurisdiction to Delhi courts since the respondent was served with the notice in Punjab. It is submitted the transaction between petitioners and respondent took place in Mandi, Gobindgarh, Punjab. The cheque was issued at Gobindgarh Bank, Pubjab and it was dishonoured at Gobindgarh. The notice was received at Gobindgarh and thus the jurisdiction was only of Gobindgarh Court. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on Ishar Alloys Steel Ltd. v Jaiswal Neco Ltd., 2001 3 SCC 609 and Harman Electronics P. Ltd. v National Panasonic India P. Ltd., 2009 1 SCC 720 and other similar cases.

(3.) On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that the respondent was having its registered office at Delhi. The cheque was deposited with its bank at Delhi, the statutory demand notice was issued from Delhi and the cheque got dishonoured at Delhi. Thus, the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. Respondent relied upon Sharad Jhunjhunwala v Compuage Infocom Limited & Anr.Crl. Writ Petition No.595 of 2010 decided by Bombay High Court and K.Bhaskaran case, 1999 7 SCC 510.