BIDYUT DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the proceeding being complaint case no. C-10286/2007 now pending before the learned 10th Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he is proprietor of Dutta Agency dealing with supply of biscuit products. In course of such commercial transaction with opposite party no. 2 Messrs. Calcutta Food Products Private Limited there was a supply of biscuits valued at Rs. 1,79,563/- during the period from 01.04.2007 to 03.06.2007. As per information of accounts an account payee cheque bearing no. 991448 dated 11.09.2007 for the said amount was drawn on State Bank of India, Belghoria Branch, Kolkata 700 056 in favour of the opposite party no. 2. On 12.09.2007 the opposite party no. 2 deposited the said cheque with his banker State Bank of India, Middleton Row Branch, Kolkata for encashment but on 13.09.2007 the said cheque was dishonoured by the banker with the following remarks Payment stopped by drawer and the said cheque was returned on 14.09.2007 under their memo dated 13.09.2007. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued by registered post with acknowledgement due on 09.10.2007 requesting the defaulting party to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice but to no effect. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the petitioners herein before the learned Court below who has taken cognizance of the offence having no territorial jurisdiction. Under the circumstances the said proceeding is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned lawyer for the petitioner has contended that from the said notice under Section 138(b)(c) in question it will appear that the cause of action of the commission of offence lodged under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act did take place within the territorial jurisdiction of Barrackpore Sub-division (PS Nimta), District North 24 Parganas and not within the jurisdiction of the learned ACJM, Alipore, South 24 Parganas who has wrongly taken cognizance of the offence. He has further submitted that on the said ground the petitioner has filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. praying for his discharge before the learned Trial Judge at Alipore who has not been vested with such power and as such his client will not proceed with the application in the Court below but has sought for appropriate reliefs before this Hon ble Court under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C.