TAPAN KUMAR NAYAK Vs. BISWANATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 407 Crimial P.C. seeking transfer of the complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No.36 of 2008 which is a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter "N.I. Act") from the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal for trial.

(2.) The petitioner is the complainant and the opposite party is the accused in the said complaint case. It is the case of the petitioner that he had got close acquaintance with the opposite party and taking advantage of such acquaintance, the opposite party requested him to give a loan of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only) without interest and promised to repay the entire loan amount within a period of six months. The petitioner in good faith handed over a cash of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only) on 01.02.2005 to the opposite party and after expiry of six months, the petitioner requested the opposite party for repayment of the entire loan amount but the opposite party on some pretext or the other, avoided the petitioner and finally on 13.08.2007, the opposite party handed over four numbers of cheques to the petitioner bearing Cheque No. 608980 dated 13.08.2007, Cheque No. 608981 dated 13.08.2007, Cheque No. 608982 dated 13.08.2007 and Cheque No. 608983 dated 13.08.2007 of the State Bank of India, Kamakhyanagar totalling to Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakhs) and asked the petitioner to present the cheques for encashment. The petitioner presented those cheques in the Union Bank of India, Sogar Branch, Dhenkanal for collection and encashment but the cheques were returned by the bank on the ground "exceeds arrangement" and accordingly, intimation was given to the petitioner from the bank vide cheque return memo dated 25.10.2007. A legal notice was sent by advocate of the petitioner from Cuttack through registered post with AD to the opposite party at his permanent address which returned with the endorsement "long absent". The complaint petition was filed in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack for taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the opposite party for appearance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at present the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition inasmuch as place of issuing of legal notice cannot be the place where the case is to be instituted and Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal has got jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is further contended that the petitioner and the opposite party and the witnesses belong to Dhenkanal and it will be convenient for all the parties if the case is tried in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal within whose local jurisdiction the cause of action arose and the offence was committed.