9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are jurisdiction of the trial court to try a criminal matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, interpretation of Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), and the proper venue for filing a complaint based on the location of various acts constituting the offense. Jurisdiction of trial court: The petitioner filed four appeals under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore in Criminal Case No. 1968/01, 1969/07, 217/07, and 1970/07. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C, questioning its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act. After a remand order, the trial court again rejected the application, leading to the present appeal. Interpretation of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C: The petitioner argued that all relevant acts, including the drawing of the cheque, presentation to the bank, notice of demand, and dishonor, had occurred in Chandigarh. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the court in Chandigarh should have jurisdiction to try the case. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that the trial court in Indore was the appropriate venue based on the presentation of the cheque at an Indore bank and service of notices in Indore. Proper venue for filing complaint: The court analyzed the location of the acts constituting the offense and determined that while the cheque was presented in Indore, the key actions such as drawing the cheque, issuance of notices, and dishonor had all taken place in Chandigarh. Consequently, the court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the complaint should have been filed in a court in Chandigarh, the competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned order, and directed the complaint to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court. Separate Judgment: The judgment was delivered by S.R. Waghmare, J. who considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the jurisdictional issue and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. Ultimately, the court sided with the petitioner's position that the complaint should have been filed in Chandigarh, where the majority of the acts constituting the offense occurred.
|
