HARTAJ SINGH Vs. GODREJ AGROVET LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Col. Hartaj Singh submits that the criminal courts in Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent No. 1, Godrej Agrovet Ltd. for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 15,48,639/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has relied upon Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neko Ltd., 2001 3 SCC 609, Harnam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009 1 SCC 720 and a decision of this Court in Online IT Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 2695/2009 and Crl. M.A. No. 9081/2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is based in Ladakh and the bank from which the dishonoured cheque was issued is situated at Panchkula, Haryana.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 in the reply to the petition has stated that the payments made by the petitioner were credited in the account maintained by respondent No. 1 at Delhi. Respondent No. 1 has filed some of the invoices raised by respondent No. 1 for supply of goods and it is pointed out that the said invoices were issued from Delhi. My attention is drawn to the airway bills and it is submitted that the supplies were made from Delhi. My attention is also drawn to the reply to the legal notice dated 12th January, 2009 given by the petitioner in which it is stated:

(3.) In the reply affidavit, the respondent No. 1 has stated that negotiations for arrangement of supply of goods took place in Delhi. As per the invoices the goods dispatched were on account and at the risk of the purchaser i.e. the petitioner and were subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.