DHANANJAY JOHRI Vs. NAVEEN SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHANANJAY Johri, the petitioner herein, vide this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has raised a legal issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi court to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, being CC No.1655/3/09 and sought quashing of the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 09.07.2009 taking cognizance of said complaint and summoning the petitioner to undergo trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) RESPONDENT (complainant) Naveen Sehgal had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner claiming that he had rendered consultancy about medical electronic and equipments, their installation and maintenance etc. for the petitioner for which he raised a bill dated 06.02.2009 for '4 lakhs. In discharge of said liability, the petitioner issued five cheques, two worth '50,000/- each and three worth '1 lakh each, all drawn on Indus Bank Ltd., Kanpur. Complainant presented those cheques for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Connaught Place, New Delhi, but those cheques were returned unpaid by the bankers of the petitioner with the endorsement "payments stopped by drawer". Upon dishonour of those cheques, complainant/respondent sent a notice dated 25.05.2009 in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the petitioner, demanding payment of amount of those cheques. Despite of service of demand notice, the petitioner failed to pay the amount of cheques, i.e. '4 lakhs, within requisite period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Thus, the complainant filed the above referred complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of learned A.C.M.M., Delhi.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a resident of Kanpur and the respondent is a resident of Faridabad. It is also not in dispute that the bill for '4 lakhs dated 06.02.2009, copy of which is Annexure C to the petition, was raised by the respondent from Faridabad and sent to the petitioner at Kanpur. It is also not in dispute that the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the petitioner at Kanpur address. Respondent is, therefore, seeking jurisdiction of Delhi court mainly on the ground that the cheques in question were presented with his bankers located in Delhi, i.e., State Bank of India, Connaught Place, New Delhi.