2022 (2) TMI 1163 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of statutory presumption - territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint case - section 138 of NI Act - service of demand notice - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has a bank account at the Yes Bank Branch in Thangal Bazar, Imphal. The date of opening of the said account does not have bearing on that irrefutable fact. The subject cheque was deposited at a Delhi Branch of Yes Bank for being credited to the said account. Mere presentation of the cheque at a Delhi Branch has no impact whatsoever in the light of the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a), which categorically states that even if the cheque is delivered in any other branch of the bank of the payee, it shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch where the payee actually maintains an account. Therefore, presentation of the cheque at a Delhi Branch of Yes Bank is of no import at all - In the light of the amended provisions of the Act of 1881 and more so, Section 142(2)(a), and the edicts of the Supreme Court in relation thereto in M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INDERPAL SINGH 2015 (12) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT and M/S HIMALAYA SELF FARMING GROUP ANR. VERSUS M/S GOYAL FEED SUPPLIERS 2020 (9) TMI 1240 - SUPREME COURT , it cannot be doubted that institution of the complaint case before the Trial Court was strictly in accordance with law, as obtaining presently. The Trial Court has jurisdiction over the area in which respondent No.1 maintains her bank account, being the account to which the cheque amount was to be credited. Therefore, the Trial Court clearly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the matter. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CC. ALAVI HAJI VERSUS PALAPETTY MUHAMMED 2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT , a presumption arises as to the service of the demand notice upon the petitioner as the address was shown correctly and there is no evidence of the said notice being returned unserved. Further, as pointed out in the said decision, this is a matter for evidence and cannot constitute a ground for non-suiting the complainant at the threshold. It is for the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumptions in this regard with satisfactory evidence - this Court finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the subject complaint case and the pleas to the contrary by the petitioner, on all counts, are bereft of merit. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
2. Service of Demand Notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as both parties were permanent residents of Delhi, and the cheque was presented at a Delhi branch. The complainant opened the bank account at Imphal only 11 days before presenting the cheque, which the petitioner argued was an abuse of process. The respondent argued that the complaint was validly filed in Imphal as the cheque was to be credited to the complainant's account at Yes Bank, Thangal Bazar, Imphal. The court referred to Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which states that the offence shall be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, which affirmed that the place where the cheque is delivered for collection determines territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the Trial Court in Imphal had jurisdiction over the case.

2. Service of Demand Notice:
The petitioner claimed that there was no proof of receipt of the demand notices sent after the cheque's dishonour. However, the respondent sent notices to the petitioner’s known addresses, including S-206, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, which matched the petitioner’s address in the criminal petition. The court noted that the petitioner did not explicitly deny receiving the notice in his petition. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed, which held that once a notice is sent to the correct address, service is deemed to have been effected, and it is unnecessary for the complainant to prove actual receipt. The court further stated that any drawer claiming non-receipt of notice can make payment within 15 days of receiving the court summons to avoid prosecution. Thus, the presumption of service of notice stood, and the petitioner’s arguments were rejected.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. It also found no merit in the petitioner’s claims regarding the non-receipt of the demand notice. Consequently, the petition to quash the complaint case and the orders passed therein was dismissed. The interim order was vacated, and both parties were to be informed of the judgment through online means.