2014 (8) TMI 430 - SC - Companies Law

Jurisdiction of Courts for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act - Transfer of Criminal Complaint No.14089 of 2009 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bangalore - Held that - Only reason the complainant claims jurisdiction for the Courts at Gurgaon is the fact that the complainant-respondent had issued the statutory notices relating to the dishonour of the cheque from Gurgaon. We do not think that issue of a statutory notice can by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. In Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. 2008 (12) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA this Court examined a similar question and clearly ruled that a unilateral act on the part of the complainant of issuing a notice from any part of the country would not vest the Court from within whose territorial limits the notice has been issued with the power to entertain a complaint. That judgment has been affirmed by a three-judge bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal 2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT - this Court has in that case held that presentation of the cheque at a place of the choice of the complainant or issue of a notice from any such place do not constitute ingredients of the offence under Section 138 and cannot, therefore, confer jurisdiction upon the Court from where such acts are performed. Although the complaint does not claim jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the cheque was presented for collection there yet in the Counter affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify the filing of the complaint on that ground - Case transferred - Decided in favour of Applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer of criminal complaint from one jurisdiction to another based on the location of the offense and jurisdictional aspects.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought the transfer of a criminal complaint from Gurgaon to Bangalore under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. The complaint involved the dishonor of a cheque issued in Bangalore, leading to statutory notices being sent from Gurgaon. The petitioners argued that Gurgaon courts lacked jurisdiction as the offense occurred in Bangalore. The Supreme Court examined the jurisdictional issue, considering the complainant's claim that Gurgaon had jurisdiction due to the notices sent from there. However, the Court cited precedents like Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. and Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., emphasizing that the mere issuance of notices from a particular place does not confer jurisdiction on the court in that area. The Court also highlighted that the presentation of the cheque at a chosen location by the complainant does not establish jurisdiction. Relying on these precedents, the Court concluded that Gurgaon courts could not assume jurisdiction in this case.

The Court noted that the complainant's jurisdictional claim based on the presentation of the cheque in Gurgaon was not valid according to legal precedents. The Court referenced the decisions in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod and Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., which clarified that the presentation of a cheque for collection does not confer jurisdiction unless it is to the drawee bank. As the complainant's grounds for jurisdiction were insufficient, the Court decided to allow the petition and transfer the complaint to the competent Court in Bangalore. The Supreme Court directed the transfer of Criminal Complaint No.14089 of 2009 from Gurgaon to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for trial, emphasizing that the Gurgaon courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter.