ARNAB CHATTERJEE Vs. JOGINDER THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition emanates from the proceedings initiated by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P.

(2.) During the pendency of this complaint, a three Hon'ble Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129 had with regard to place of filing of the complaint over ruled its earlier view in Shamshad Begum (Smt) v. B. Mohammed, (2008) 13 SCC 77 and partly over ruled earlier view in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, (1999) 7 SCC 510 and held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence under section 138 of the Act must be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located.

(3.) It was further held that the territorial jurisdiction for filing of cheque dishonoured complaint was restricted to the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence was committed, which is the location where the cheque is dishonoured, i.e. returned unpaid by the bank by which it was drawn and, therefore, place of issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment at his bank is not relevant for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction for filing of cheque dishonoured complaints. However, at the same time, in order to avoid hardship to the litigant, it was further directed that in case the court lacked the territorial jurisdiction then the complaints so filed should be returned to the complainants for filing the same before appropriate court, i.e. court having territorial jurisdiction.