ADITYA PROMOTERS LTD. Vs. S. KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by filing the present petition under Section 482of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), has assailed order dated 30.08.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate -(NI Act) -Central -01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the complaint has been returned to the petitioner/complainant for filing the same in the Court having territorial jurisdiction. In a nut shell, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant is a limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 4428, Ganesh Bazar, cloth Market, Delhi -110006 and was engaged in manufacturing and trading of crockery and allied items. The accused is the sole proprietor of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Corporation and has been purchasing crockery, glasses and plastic allied items, etc. from the complainant on credit basis from time to time through its sales office at Delhi. There was an outstanding balance of Rs. 51,971/ - as on 01.05.2014, complainant issued debit note interest of Rs. 4,158/ - which was confirmed by the accused firm and a sum of Rs. 56,129/ - (Rupees was due after adjustment of all the payments made by accused, in discharge of liability the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 000037 dated 30.05.2014 for Rs. 56,129/ - (Rupees Fifty six thousand one hundred twenty nine) drawn on The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Coimbatore. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds insufficient' vide returning memo dated 04.06.2014. Despite statutory notice dated 16.06.2014 being served upon the accused, the accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque.

(2.) VIDE impugned order, learned trial court returned the complaint to the petitioner/complainant for filing the same before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, in view of the judgment in 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.' (Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2014).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that now a days, almost all the branches of the bank are covered under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and in terms of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No. RBI/2012 -13/163 DPSS.CO.CHD. No. 271/03.01.02/2012 -13 dated 10.08.2012, all CBS enabled banks have been asked to issue only 'payable at par'/'multi -city' CTS 2010 standard cheques to all eligible customers, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the essential features of multi -city/cheques payable at par is that the holder of cheque can present the same at any CBS enabled branch of the drawee bank in order to encash the said cheque. That being so, the complainant is well within its right to initiate prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act at the place where the branch in which the cheque in question was presented for its encashment irrespective of the fact that such branch was not the home branch of the drawee bank where the accused was having the bank account in the said bank. In other words, the main thrust of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner/complainant is that the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act can be instituted even at that branch of a bank wherein the cheque in question was deposited and got dishonoured, in addition to the home branch of the drawee bank wherein the accused has bank account. When the accused issued such a cheque 'payable at par' there was an express authority to the complainant under the aforesaid condition to present the cheque in any branch of the concerned Bank.