KAPIL PURI Vs. R S ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 16.4.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon as well as order dated 7.6.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner after issuing a legal notice through his counsel from Gurgaon relating to a cheque bearing No. 023899 dated 28.12.2012 drawn on Bank of India, Chembur Branch, Mumbai, which was returned unpaid. The petitioner being summoned in the complaint, appeared before the trial Court and was released on bail. Respondent-complainant alleged in the complaint that it was maintainable at Gurgaon, whereas, an objection was raised by the petitioner that none of the transactions took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court except issuance of demand notice, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable at Gurgaon. Only the Court at Mumbai is having territorial jurisdiction as the cheque in dispute was presented at HDFC Bank at Mumbai which was returned unpaid at Mumbai. Even the petitioner is having residential address of Mumbai.

(2.) On the basis of aforementioned facts, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court challenging jurisdiction of the trial Court. Complainant-respondent filed reply to the application and thereafter the application was dismissed on 16.4.2014 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, which was challenged by way of filing revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the same was also dismissed on 7.6.2014.

(3.) Both the aforesaid orders dated 16.4.2014 and 7.6.2014 are now subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable at Gurgaon as none of the transactions took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Gurgaon. Learned senior counsel further contends that no cause of action arose at Gurgaon except issuance of demand notice as cheque in dispute was drawn from the Bank at Mumbai and the same was returned unpaid also at Mumbai. The residential address of the petitioner was also of Mumbai.