NEERAJ PARASHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned order dated 23.1.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in complaint Case No. 81/1 P.S. Paschim vihar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') titled Krishan Kumar Singh Vs. Neeraj Parashar. The respondent No. 2/complainant herein filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Act inter alia on the grounds, that in the month of December, 2010, the petitioner herein approached the respondent No. 2 for financial assistance of Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs). The petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 011896 for Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) dated 20.5.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank, Tagore Town, Allahabad Branch, 19A, Tagore Town, Allahabad -211002 towards repayment of the said amount. On presentation the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. The respondent No. 2 sent a legal demand notice on 8.12.2012. Despite service of notice, this petitioner failed to make the payment of the amount of cheque. Hence respondent No. 2/complainant filed the complaint.

(2.) THE short question involved in the present petition is whether courts at Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to respondent No. 2 money was paid in Allahabad, the cheque in question was handed over at Allahabad and, therefore, courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

(3.) THE controversy with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts under section 138 of the Act has been set at rest by the Supreme Court of India in Nishant Aggarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma : 2113 (3) JCC [NI] 158 : (2013) 10 SCC 72 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs. Jayaswals NECO Ltd. : 2001 (2) JCC 17 : (2001) 3 SCC 609, reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection. In the said case it was held: