9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 686 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - summoning of the accused - it was observed by the trial court that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint case as the payee bank was situated in North District, hence the accused could not be summoned - HELD THAT - It is evident that the present complaint ought to have been filed in the Court under whose jurisdiction the bank of the payee, i.e., petitioner is situated. The bank of the payee is situated at Model Town-III, Delhi, which falls in the North District and the courts of the said district are situated at Rohini Courts Complex, New Delhi - Apparently, the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in West District does not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint in question, which was filed due to bona fide belief in a District Court, which has no jurisdiction. The criminal complaint under Section 138 N I Act pending in the court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District Rohini, North, Rohini Courts Complex, New Delhi along with all the original and complete records - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Transfer of complaint case under Section 138 of NI Act to a court of competent jurisdiction. Analysis: The petitioner sought the transfer of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 from the Court of Sh. Devanshu Sajlan to a court of competent jurisdiction in North District, Rohini Court Complex, New Delhi. The respondent had availed a loan and issued a dishonored cheque, leading to the filing of the complaint case. The trial court observed that it lacked jurisdiction to try the case as the 'payee bank' was in North District. The petitioner argued for the transfer based on Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, which mandates that the court within whose local jurisdiction the bank of the payee is situated should try the case. The judgment highlighted that the bank of the payee, i.e., the petitioner, was located in Model Town-III, Delhi, falling under North District. Therefore, the Court in West District did not have jurisdiction to try the case. The judgment emphasized that the complaint was filed in a District Court with no jurisdiction due to a genuine belief. Consequently, the High Court ordered the transfer of the criminal complaint to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District Rohini, North, Rohini Courts Complex, New Delhi, along with all original records. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was given the discretion to keep the case or transfer it to another Magistrate for further proceedings. In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the direction for the transfer of the complaint case. The order was to be communicated to the concerned court and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for compliance. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District North, Rohini Courts Complex, New Delhi on a specified date. The judgment ensured the proper jurisdictional transfer of the case in accordance with the provisions of the NI Act, safeguarding the legal rights and procedures involved.
|
