1998 (3) TMI 698 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order rejecting the application to drop proceedings.
2. Validity of the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court.
4. Authority of the complainant to file the complaint.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order Rejecting the Application to Drop Proceedings:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the order dated 16th May 1997 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, which rejected the application to drop proceedings. The petitioner argued that he was not in charge of or responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, and there was no averment to this effect in the complaint. The Magistrate, after considering the arguments, rejected the application, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

2. Validity of the Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner contended that the notice issued by the complainant was not in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as it did not specify the interest amount, making it vague. The Court held that the notice did not need to specify the interest amount separately, as long as it demanded the cheque amount. The Court referred to Section 80 of the Act, which provides for interest at 18% per annum when no rate is specified. The Court concluded that the notice was clear and unambiguous in demanding the cheque amount, and the mention of "accrued interest" did not make it vague or insufficient.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court:
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's Court at Girgaum lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheque was not dishonoured within its jurisdiction. The Court referred to the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court, which held that the place where the cheque was handed over or delivered also has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the Girgaum Court had the territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

4. Authority of the Complainant to File the Complaint:
The petitioner challenged the authority of the complainant to file the complaint, arguing that the complaint did not disclose that the complainant was the duly constituted attorney of the payee. The Court noted that the complainant had filed the complaint as a duly constituted attorney of his wife, and the verification recorded by the Magistrate confirmed this. The Court held that technical defects in the title of the complaint could not defeat the purpose of Sections 138 to 142 of the Act. The Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts and law while issuing the process and rejecting the application to recall the process.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The Court upheld the Magistrate's order, confirming the validity of the notice, the territorial jurisdiction of the Girgaum Court, and the authority of the complainant to file the complaint. The parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-4-98, and the ad-interim order granted on 22-1-1998 was vacated.