2016 (2) TMI 1334 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - petitioners-complainant submits that the complaint was at post summoning stage and fixed for evidence of respondents-accused - section 142 of NI Act - HELD THAT - Undisputedly keeping in view the judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod s case 2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant for its presentation before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Subsequent thereto the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) issued the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 which came into force on 15th June 2015. A perusal of section 142 transpires that after issuance of the Ordinance 2015 offence under Section 138 of the Act shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course as the case may be maintains the account is situated or if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account the branch of drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account is situated. The aforesaid amendment appears to have been carried out to overcome the judgment captioned as Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod s case. Hon ble Apex Court in para 20 of Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod s case has held that the cases where post the summoning and appearance of the alleged accused the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the Act will proceed to continue at the place where they are filed. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Applicability of the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another on returning complaints for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioners filed a revision petition against an order returning their complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, after a cheque issued by the respondents was dishonored. The petitioners argued that the complaint was at a post-summoning stage and fixed for evidence of the accused, hence could not be returned by the Magistrate. The respondents acknowledged this fact but highlighted the amendments brought about by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The court noted the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case and the subsequent Ordinance, emphasizing the need for the complaint to be presented before a court of competent jurisdiction based on the amended Section 142 of the Act.

Impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015:
The Ordinance amended Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifying that the offense under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the cheque was delivered for collection or presented for payment. This amendment aimed to address the challenges posed by the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case. The court highlighted the significance of these changes in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for trying cases related to dishonored cheques, emphasizing the need to comply with the amended provisions post the issuance of the Ordinance in 2015.

Applicability of Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's Case Judgment:
The court referred to para 20 of the Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case, which outlined the circumstances under which cases could proceed at the place where they were filed post the summoning and commencement of evidence. The court also cited a similar case, The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Seema, where the order returning the complaint was quashed, directing the trial court to proceed with the complaint. Considering the Ordinance, 2015, and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the court concluded that the impugned order returning the complaint was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the earlier order and directing the trial court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the amended provisions and legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court provides insights into the jurisdictional aspects, legislative amendments, and judicial interpretations concerning complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.