MELTRO ENTERPRISES Vs. RAMESH CHANDER JAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a revision petition and has been directed against the order dated 10-9-1994 iassed by the Court of Judicial Maciistrate 1st Class. Chandiciarh who, returned the complaint of the petitioner with the directions to file it in the court of competent Jurisdiction at New Delhi.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that M/ s. Meltro Enterprises. Industrial Area. Chandigarh, through its partner Shri Anil Kumar filed a complaint against Ramesh Chander Jam. RDS Engineers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the allegations that Ramesh Chander Jam issued a cheque to the complainant's firm at Chandigarh and when the cheque was presented through bankers at Chandigarh it was dishonoured. It may be mentioned here that the cheque issued by the respondent was drawn up at Dena Bank. New Delhi and it was dishonoured. The complaint was filed at Chandigarh. The learned Magistrate returned the complaint holding that only the Courts at New Delhi had Jurisdiction to try the complaint. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1994, the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the complaint that the respondent came to Chandigarh and purchased the goods and in consideration thereof he issued the cheque at Chandigarh and it was presented for collection at Chandigarh through bankers. In this view of the matter the part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. The learned Magistrate has not taken this aspect into consideration and has jumped to a conclusion in an illegal manner that the Criminal Courts, at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied upon Goutham TV Centre & Ors. v. M/s. Apex Agencies, where the similar proposition was adjudicated upon by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the cited case the cheques were drawn at Bank at Kurnool. The cheques were presented for collection at Hyderabad. Those cheques bounced and the effect of bouncing of the cheques was intimated by the complainant through Indian Overseas Bank. Hyderabad and the complaint was filed at Hyderabad. The accused took objection that Courts at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that as the cheques were drawn at bank at Kurnool, therefore, the Courts at Kurnool had jurisdiction to try the complaint. The Magistrate overruled the objection and the order of the learned Magistrate was upheld. The ratio of the cited judgment would show that where cheque was presented for collection that court had also the jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the present case the cheque was presented at Chandigarh and respondent was also informed through bank regarding bouncing of the cheque. Therefore, the Courts at Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint. The support can also be taken from Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar and Anr.. In para No. 15 of the cited judgment their Lordships were pleased to hold as follows: Mr. Manohar was critical of the prosecution in this case having been instituted in Kolhapur, whereas the accused is a resident of Nagpur and the Company has its place of business near Chandrapur. Even though he did not seriously attack the validity of the local jurisdiction vis-avis the Kolhapur Court having entertained the complaint, he did make a serious issue of the fact that the whole purpose of having instituted criminal proceeding against the accused virtually at the other end of the State was obviously directed as a pressure tactic and to that extent, constituted abuse of the process of Court. Even though the question does not directly arise. Mr. Jahagirdar was quick to point out that the complainant resides at Kolhapur and the non-payment of the money to him at Kolhapur constitutes the gravamen of the charge and therefore, under Section 177 Cr. P.C., the proceedings were rightly instituted before the local Court. The anatomy of Section 138 comprises certain necessary components before the offence can be said to be complete, the last of them being the act of nonpayment in spite of 15 days having elapsed after receipt of the final notice. It is true that the cheques may have been issued by the accused at his place of residence or business, the Bank on which it is drawn being often located at a second spot and inevitably the complainant or the payee has his place of residence or business at yet another location. It was for this reason that the Kerala High Court in the case P.K. Muraleedharan v. C.K. Pareed, reported in 1992 Criminal Law Journal 1965: 1992 ISJ (Banking) 299, took the view that any of the three courts could exercise jurisdiction. In our considered view, where undoubtedly each of the components constitute a stage in the commission of the offence, the final non-payment being the ultimate one, Section 178 Cr. P.C. would clearly apply to an offence of this type. It would be perfectly valid and asonabIe to hold, therefore, that the aggrieved party viz., the complainant is fully justified in approaching the local Court having jurisdiction over the area where the payment was to be made to him in the final instance. Having defaulted in the first instance, the law casts a special obligation on the drawer of the cheque to make amends by tendering the payment to the payee and the correct approach in such a situation would be, to construe the offence having been complete at the place where the payment ought to have been tendered to the drawee but was wrongfully not done. Applying these principles, therefore, it cannot be held that the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court at Kolhapur was either incorrect or that it constituted abuse.T