GEE PEE FOODS PVT. LTD Vs. DIGVIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for determination in this Revision Petition is, "whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) can be presented at a place where the Complainant deposited the cheque in his Bank (i.e. at the place where the collecting Bank is situated)."

(2.) A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act was presented against the Petitioners on the averments that on 01.03.2009, the Respondent was appointed as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with the First Petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 75,000/- to establish its operations in Northern India. In discharge of the liability to pay the salary, the Petitioners handed over a cheque No.082471 dated 29.04.2009 for Rs. 74,800/- drawn on IDBI Bank, 44, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Kolkata-700 017 to the Respondent. The said cheque when presented with HDFC Bank, New Delhi stood dishonoured with remarks of "insufficient funds?. In the complaint it was alleged that bouncing of the said cheque was brought to the notice of Petitioners No.2 and 3 and on their instructions, the Respondent presented the cheque again but it was again dishonoured on presentation with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer". When the factum of bouncing of the said cheque again was brought to the notice of Petitioners No.2 and 3 (accused No.2 and 3 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate) they again apologized and assured to make arrangement for encashment of the cheque. The cheque was again dishonoured when presented on 18.08.2009. A legal notice through the lawyer at New Delhi was dispatched to the Petitioners and on failure to make the payment within the statutory period as laid down under Section 138 of the Act, a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act was filed against the Petitioners.

(3.) After recording pre summoning evidence, the Petitioners were summoned for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. They moved a Petition before the High Court for quashing of the complaint on the ground that the Delhi Courts had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as no part of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi. It is stated that the said Petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court. Thus, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ("MM?). The following averments were made in the application:-