LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-54

ISHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 06, 1996
ISHWARI DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Ishwari Devi has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by Shyam Saroop-respondent NO.2 with respect to offence contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Pad with Section 420 IPC and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) It is alleged that petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 to sell flat No. 304, Sant Nagar, New Delhi. The sale consideration was Rs. 6,50,000/-. At the time of execution of said agreement, respondent No.2 is alleged to have made a payment of Rs. 3 Lacs. The remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. Possession was handed over to respondent NO.2 in 1993. The respondent No.2 did not pay the balance amount to postpone the payment. It is asserted that ultimately it was decided to take back the possession of the flat and refund the amount. The petitioner issued three cheques. It was agreed that cheques will be presented at Delhi and an agreement in this regard was arrived at. It was also agreed that original documents would be returned. The respondent No.2 presented those cheques for encashment without returning the original documents. The cheques were dishonoured. A notice was issued by respondent No.2 which was replied. Subsequently, respondent No.2 presented the cheques at Punjab and Sind Bank, Rayya. They were dishonoured. This was followed by a complaint by respondent NO.2 after serving a notice.

(3.) As per the petitioner the said complaint presented in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar is without jurisdiction and no case is drawl against the petitioner. He contends that the complaint has been presented at Amritsar though there was an agreement to sell the flat at Delhi, the property is situated at Delhi and the cheques were issued at Delhi. The parties agreed that the Delhi Courts had the jurisdiction. Thus, the courts at Amritsar had no jurisdiction, The complaint otherwise also is asserted to be barred by time.