PRASHANT Vs. RAMESH HARIRAM BHANDARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is accused in Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 1161 of 2009 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia. THE applicant is resident of Nagpur and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the complaint filed by the Non-applicant. THE case of the Non-applicant/ the complaint is that the applicant is close relative of the non-applicant. Both of them had cordial relations. THE non-applicant used to visit the applicant frequently at Nagpur. THE applicant is an Estate Agent. He had suggested the non- applicant to buy a plot situated at Beltarodi, Post : Pipla (Hudkeshwar), Nagpur. Accordingly the non-applicant had purchased a plot. After about six months, there was increase in the property rates. THE applicant, therefore, with consent of the non-applicant had sold the said plot for Rs.9.5 lacs. It was purchased for Rs.7.5 lacs. As such, there was profit of Rs.2,00,000/-. THE profit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to the non-applicant by the applicant. It is alleged by the non-applicant that the applicant failed to pay the said amount. He, therefore, gave a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, drawn on Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Khamla Branch, Nagpur. THE cheque was deposited by the non- applicant in Bank of India, Rail Toli Branch, Gondia. It was, however, dishonoured by the bankers of the non-applicant. THE non-applicant, therefore, issued a statutory notice on 6th October, 2009, which was returned as unclaimed on 27th October, 2009. THE complaint was filed within statutory period. On filing of the complaint by the non-applicant a summons had been issued to the applicant/THE applicant prays that the applicant moved the trial Court for discharge on the ground that the trial Court at Gondia had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint field by the non-applicant. THE learned Magistrate, after hearing both the sides, came to a conclusion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 2000 1 MhLJ 193, was not applicable to the present case and therefore, the trial Court rejected application for discharge.

(2.) The applicant/original accused has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings on the ground that Gondia Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence.

(3.) If the applicant had failed to pay the amount within a reasonable time after sale of plot, it obviously was his duty to make payment at Gondia. Similarly if the cheque issued by the applicant was dishonoured, ordinarily he was supposed to make payment to the non-applicant at Gondia. As such, in the present case, failure to make payment had occasioned at Gondia and therefore, in my considered opinion Gondia Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.