GOPINATH MOHANTI Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. accused -petitioner has prayed for transfer of C.T. Case No. 1661 of 2004, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act), lodged by complainant -opposite party in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul to any other court situated at Bhubaneswar. On consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) AVERMENTS made in the complaint petition, as are essential and relevant for purpose of this application, are as follows: - Accused -petitioner being the Managing Partner is responsible for managing his firm 'Classic Super Construction. Complainant took sub -contract of the work of "Excavation of Padiabhanga Canal, Lingarakata Canal, Balipatpur Canal with Minor and Sub -Minors including all structure of Rengali Sub -Project under R.I.P. under AIBP" which had been awarded in favour of the accused and submitted bills for payment after execution of the work. Accused issued cheque bearing no. 499440 dated 25.04.2004 of Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar for Rs. 6,73,894/ - towards part payment. Complainant presented the cheque for encashment before United Bank of India, Kulad Branch, Angul on 25.04.2004. On 22.07.2004 complainants banker United Bank of India, Kulad Branch returned the cheque stating that the cheque was dishonoured with the intimation bearing endorsement "Payment stopped by Drawee". On 29.07.2004 complainant issued Advocates notice demanding payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheque within stipulated period.

(3.) IN reply, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that all the acts towards commission of alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act were done in the local area under the jurisdiction of the court of S.D.J.M., Angul. It was contended that the opposite party never agreed that all disputes between him and complainant would be enquired into and tried by courts in Bhubaneswar only. Stipulation, if any, in any agreement is a manipulation. It was further argued that law is well settled that parties by agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a court not possessed by it. As regards the second contention, it was contended that petitioners grievance made earlier before this court regarding threat to his life at Angul has been suitably dealt with by this Court by order dated 28.07.2006 passed in CRLMC No.1588 of 2006. It was strenuously argued that the petitioner has filed the present application vaxatiously in order to prolong the prosecution.