SANJAY PRATAP BHATI Vs. SE INVESTMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sanjay Pratap Bhati has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as' Cr.P.C.') against the impugned order dated 2.4.2013 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as order dated 22.2.2013) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in complaint case No. 411/2013 titled M/s. S.E. Investments Ltd. v. Sanjay Pratap Bhati. Briefly stating the fads of the present case are that respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner herein had obtained loans from respondent No. 1/complainant company and executed two hypothecation agreements dated 26.8.2004 and 27.1.2005. Pursuant to the said agreements, respondent No. 1 was to repay the said loan as per terms and conditions mentioned herein. The respondent No. 1 issued cheque bearing No. 845879 dated 26.12.2012 for Rs. 22,98,958/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs ninety eight thousand nine hundred and fifty eight only) drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Friends, Plaza, Sanjay Place, Agra towards discharge of debt/liability he repayment of said loan. On presentation, the said cheque dishonoured with the remarks "account dosed'. Respondent No. 1 served a notice dated 11.1.2013 and despite service of notice petitioner failed to make the payment of the said cheque. Hence respondent No. 1/complainant filed the complaint.

(2.) learned counsel for the petitioner submits that courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as no part of the alleged transaction took place at Delhi. The cheque in question was payable at Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint does not contain the requisite averments for the court to take cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) The short question involved in the present petition is whether courts at Delhi have, territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. This controversy is no more res integra in view of the law laid down in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2013 10 SCC 72