GOPAL MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint and the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated l.6.2009. whereby he was summoned, on the ground that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed against him.

(2.) There are five essential ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999 7 SCC 510

(3.) This is not the case of the complainant that cheque in question was issued and delivered to it in Delhi. There is no such allegation to this effect in the complaint and during the course of arguments also no such stand was taken by the learned Counsel for the complainant. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is a resident of Jaipur and does not have either a residence or a place of work in Delhi. It is an admitted case that cheque in question was drawn on a Bank in Jaipur and was dishonoured by that Bank at Jaipur. It, is also an admitted position that the notice of demand though issued from Delhi was sent to the petitioner at Jaipur. This is nowhere the case of the complainant that the notice of demand was served upon the petitioner in Delhi.