9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant sought to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 882/SS/10 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a non-banking financial company, alleged that the accused issued 11 cheques which were dishonored. Despite statutory notice, the accused failed to pay, leading to the complaint. The Magistrate issued process after verifying the complaint and supporting documents. Issue 2: Mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The accused contended that the Magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. as the accused resided outside the local jurisdiction. The Court referenced Capt. S.C. Mathur v. Elektronik Lab. and Ors. and Satish @ Rajendra Harbans Tiwari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., which emphasized the necessity of such an enquiry. However, the Court also considered Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Ltd., which held that the provision is directory, not mandatory. The Court agreed with this view, noting that sufficient material was presented to the Magistrate to justify the issuance of process without further enquiry. Issue 3: Territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate The accused argued that no part of the transaction occurred in Mumbai, thus the Mumbai Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court examined the agreements and transactions, noting that the original agreement was executed in Mumbai, and funds were disbursed from Mumbai. The Court referenced K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., which outlined the five components of an offence u/s 138, stating that if any of these acts occur in different localities, any of those local areas can have jurisdiction. The Court found that two components (notice issuance and payment failure) occurred in Mumbai, along with the original contract, thus affirming the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Magistrate. Conclusion: The application to quash the proceedings was rejected. The trial Court was instructed not to be influenced by observations regarding the execution of the agreement dated 26.9.2005, as only a photocopy was produced.
|
