RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioner as the facts of these cases are identical and raise common question of law. For the sake of convenience, facts of Crl.Rev.P. No. 179/2009 are being taken note of.

(2.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 09.03.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case No. 10621/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") holding inter alia that the court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and returning the same to the complainant/petitioner, for being presented before the court having territorial jurisdiction to try the same.

(3.) It is averred in the complaint petition that the petitioner/complainant is a public limited company having its registered and corporate office at New Delhi and is dealing with the business of providing its customers various types of loans. It is further stated that the respondent/accused availed loan facility from the petitioner/complainant but the account became irregular. Towards discharge of part of the debts, the respondent/accused issued cheques, which when presented by the petitioner/complainant to its bankers namely, HDFC Bank Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi, were returned unpaid by the bankers of the accused under the return memo dated 29.12.2008, with the remarks, "insufficient fundsc. The return memo was received by the petitioner/complainant at Delhi. In para 4 of the complaint, it is stated that the aforesaid cheques were submitted by the respondent/accused at the corporate and registered office of the complainant/petitioner. Thereafter, a legal demand notice was issued by the petitioner/complainant to the respondent/accused from Delhi, duly dispatched on 14.01.2009. As the respondent/accused failed to make the payments of the cheque amount, demanded through the legal notice within the stipulated period, the petitioner/complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The impugned order came to be passed at the pre-cognizance stage. In other words, notices were not issued on the complaint to the accused and instead, the complaint was returned at the pre-summoning stage by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the petitioner/complainant for want of territorial jurisdiction.