MEENU BHIST Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this court and seeks a quashing order in respect of criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant for alleged commission of offences under Sections 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE respondent had initiated the proceedings with a complaint alleging that he was given three cheques on 28/1/2003, 3/2/2003 and 6/2/2003 for a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The first accused, in the complaint was M/s L. P. Papers Ltd. having its office at Philibhit in Uttar Pradesh and the other accused were arrayed in their capacity as either chairman/managing director or directors respectively. The complainant alleged that the cheques were issued to satisfy a liability i. e. return of loan, advanced to the company. The cheques were not honoured, when presented to the drawer's bank; notice was issued, followed by the complaint. A summoning order was issued. During pendency of the proceedings, the complainant compounded the offence by receiving 50% of the amount from accused Nos. 3 and 4. Accused No. 3, in the array of parties was described as a managing director. Upon this development, the complainant moved an application on 16. 11. 2004, for permission to withdraw the proceedings against those accused and permitting continuation of the proceedings in respect of the other accused. That was granted.

(3.) MR. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel contends that the proceedings initiated were without jurisdiction and their continuance is not only irregular but illegal. He has raised three fold submissions in this regard; it is firstly contended that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi. The three cheques in question were drawn in Philibhit; the bank in terms of Section 138 was the drawer's bank in Bareilly; the cheques were presented to that bank and returned by it. In these circumstances the fact that the petitioner, a practising advocate resided in Delhi and chose to present the instrument in his account in Delhi and also issued the notice from Delhi did not clothe the courts in Delhi with jurisdiction in this regard.