9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 314 - HC - Indian LawsComplaints filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonour of the cheques - whether the complaints, for the dishonour of the cheques, could not have been filed in the court of the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara as the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints would be with the court at New Delhi? - Held that - The commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate under Chapter XVI starts with the issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a summons case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, but if it is a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. The aforesaid provisions make it clear that the Magistrate is required to issue summons for attendance of the accused only on examination of the complaint and on satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance of the offence and that he is competent to take such cognizance of offence. Once the decision is taken and summons is issued, in the absence of a power of review including the inherent power to do so, the remedy lies before the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not before the Magistrate. Section 201 Cr.P.C., as noticed earlier, can be applied immediately on receipt of a complaint, if the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence. Once the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence forms his opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and issues summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., there is no question of going back following the procedure under Section 201 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any power of review or recall the order of issuance of summons, the Magistrate cannot recall the summons in exercise of its power under Section 201 Cr.P.C. (see Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Private Limited & Ors., ( 2013 (11) TMI 1473 - SUPREME COURT)) For the foregoing reasons, hold that the Court at Vadodara has the territorial jurisdiction and the complaints filed by the complainant for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act are maintainable. 51. In the result, all the applications fail and are hereby rejected. Notice is discharged. The interim relief, earlier granted in terms of para-14(d), stands vacated forthwith. Direct service is permitted.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). 2. Interpretation of Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act regarding the place of filing complaints. 3. Applicability of Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for determining jurisdiction. Analysis of the Judgment: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The primary issue was whether the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, had the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The applicants argued that the complaints should be filed in New Delhi, where the cheques were delivered for collection, while the complainant contended that Vadodara had jurisdiction because the cheques were ultimately credited to their account in Vadodara. 2. Interpretation of Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act: The Court analyzed Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act, which provides that the complaint for dishonor of cheques should be filed where the payee's bank is located if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, or where the drawee's bank is located if the cheque is presented for payment otherwise through an account. The Court emphasized the importance of the account maintained by the complainant with the Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, and concluded that the cheques were presented through this account, thereby giving jurisdiction to the Vadodara Court. 3. Applicability of Section 201 of the Cr.P.C.: The Court also discussed the applicability of Section 201 of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of an offence. The Court held that once the Magistrate issues summons after taking cognizance, the remedy for challenging jurisdiction lies under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and not before the Magistrate under Section 201. Conclusion: The Court held that the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, had the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Court emphasized that the cheques were presented through the complainant's account in Vadodara, and thus, the complaints were rightly filed there. The applications seeking to quash the complaints were rejected, and the interim relief was continued for eight weeks. Significant Phrases: - "Territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints would be with the court at New Delhi." - "The cheques were presented through an account maintained by the complainant with the Bank of Baroda, Fertilizer Nagar Branch, Vadodara." - "Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act now makes it clear that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection through an account." - "The explanation for the purposes of clause (a) makes the picture more clear." - "The complainant should not suffer at both the ends." - "The new law on the issue of territorial jurisdiction now introduces the clarity and uniformity." - "The Corporation Bank has made itself very clear in the certificate dated 07.09.2015." - "The Court at Vadodara has the territorial jurisdiction and the complaints filed by the complainant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are maintainable." Order: The applications were rejected, and the interim relief was continued for eight weeks.
|
