2020 (1) TMI 380 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - section 138 of NI Act - territorial jurisdiction - It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the cheque has been drawn on M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Sharjah Branch, UAE, the dishonour of same had occurred outside the territory of India and as such the Courts in Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra and the same has been decided long back in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INDERPAL SINGH 2015 (12) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. The cheque in question was presented for encashment by the complainant in Canara Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi-92, the present petition is dismissed along with pending applications - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the petition.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi regarding a complaint case.

Condonation of Delay in Re-filing:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The delay was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Courts:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash a complaint case pending before the CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The argument presented was that since the cheque in question was drawn on a bank in UAE, the dishonour occurred outside India, thus Delhi Courts lacked jurisdiction. The complaint related to the dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant in Delhi. The complainant presented the cheque in Delhi, where it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner argued that the provisions of Cr.P.C. should override those of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming the cause of action occurred in UAE. However, the Court referred to Section 142(2A) of the N.I. Act, which confers jurisdiction based on the location of the bank branch where the payee maintains the account. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inderpal Singh, the Court held that the place where the cheque is delivered for collection determines territorial jurisdiction. As the cheque was presented in Delhi, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming Delhi's jurisdiction. The judgment was communicated to the Trial Court, and the petition along with pending applications were dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay in re-filing the petition and the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi regarding the complaint case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court.