2022 (7) TMI 1169 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of the criminal proceeding and issuance of notice - cause of action vis-a-vis the alleged transactions between the parties arose within the State of Orissa - Notice pending in the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishakhapatnam - whether this Court exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can set aside or quash a criminal proceeding pending before the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishakhapatnam in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case? - HELD THAT - In the present case as it appears from Annexure-1 series the alleged cheque stated to have been presented at Vishakhapatnam if at all the averments therein are to be believed and accepted at its face value. If such is the case then OP No. 1 can be said to have rightly filed the complaint at Vishakhapatnam where his banker is situated. The transactions might have taken place in Orissa and for that civil litigations could have been brought before any court situated at such places where a part of cause of action arose but for the purpose of a criminal action under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in view of Section 142(2) it has to be at a place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured. In the instant case the transactions stated to have taken place within the State but the alleged cheque as claimed by OP No. 1 stood dishonoured at Vishakhapatnam whereafter the complaint was filed in the court of Chief Metropolitan situated there. The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would have to respond to the notice in question which has been received under Annexure-2 or if so advised may also question the maintainability of the complaint on merits by approaching the High Court of Andhra Pradesh since above is the prima facie view of this Court which is based on the available materials. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of criminal proceeding and issuance of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction of court to entertain complaint, and applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to maintainability of criminal proceeding and issuance of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the criminal proceeding and issuance of notice in C.C. No. 4 of 2013 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam. The petitioner argued that the cause of action regarding alleged transactions between the parties arose in the State of Orissa, questioning the jurisdiction of the court at Vishakhapatnam. The petitioner denied the liability claimed by the opposite party and contended that the statutory requirements under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were not met. The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was filed outside Orissa to harass and extract more money, emphasizing that the entire transaction occurred in Orissa, making the complaint's filing in Vishakhapatnam improper.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of court to entertain complaint
The court considered whether it could set aside or quash a criminal proceeding pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam. Referring to previous judgments, the court noted that under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act, the court within the jurisdiction where the cheque was presented and dishonored should try the case. In this case, the alleged cheque was presented in Vishakhapatnam, where the complainant's banker was situated. The court distinguished a previous case where a complaint was quashed due to the mismatch between the place of issuance and dishonor of the cheque, which was not applicable in the current scenario. The court concluded that the complaint was maintainable at Vishakhapatnam based on the available evidence and dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the maintainability of the criminal proceeding and notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction based on the place of cheque presentation and dishonor. The petitioner was directed to respond to the notice or challenge the complaint's maintainability before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the court at Vishakhapatnam in the matter.