2020 (10) TMI 904 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - restoration of the complaint which was returned to the complainant - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the present respondent had instituted a criminal case against the present petitioners in the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, after return of the complaint, the complainant did not present the same before the jurisdictional Court, but the same is proved to be not correct in view of the observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order, where it is clearly stated that the matter was presented before the Salem Court and again it was returned, in view of the NI Ordinance 2015. Thus it is clear that, subsequent to return of the complaint by the trial Court, the complainant had filed the said complaint before the appropriate jurisdictional Court. However, by virtue of the amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act, which is with effect from 15.06.2015, once again the complainant has approached the original trial Court. No doubt he has made an application under Section 142 of the NI Act, but making such an application would not in any way cause any prejudice to either side. On the other hand, it would enable him to get reentry in the trial Court by bringing to its notice the amended provision of Section 142 of NI Act - since the materials placed before this Court go to show that, after return of the complaint, the complainant has filed the complaint at then prevailing jurisdictional Court and by subsequent amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act, has once again approached the trial Court, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order challenged in this petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Jurisdiction of the trial court.
3. Effect of subsequent amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act on the restoration of the complaint.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenged the trial court's order restoring C.C.No.509/2013 under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was initially returned to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate jurisdictional court. The petitioners argued that the complainant failed to present the complaint within the stipulated time after its return. However, the trial court allowed the restoration without notice to the accused, citing an amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act.

2. The respondent contended that the complaint was returned following the judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, directing presentation before the competent court where the accused and drawee bank are located. The complainant complied by presenting the complaint before the Namakkal court. Subsequently, due to an amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act, the matter was brought back to the trial court at Ranebennur. The respondent argued that the restoration was not erroneous based on the legal developments and the complainant's actions.

3. It was established that the complainant did present the complaint before the Namakkal court after the initial return by the trial court. Subsequently, the complainant reapplied to the trial court due to the amendment to Section 142 of the NI Act. The court found no prejudice caused by the application under Section 142 and noted that it enabled the complainant to highlight the amended provision. The court concluded that the restoration was lawful, considering the complainant's actions following the return of the complaint and the subsequent legal amendments.

In conclusion, the petition challenging the restoration of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed by the court, upholding the trial court's decision based on the legal developments and the complainant's compliance with the jurisdictional requirements.