2021 (11) TMI 982 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - inconsistency as to the name of complainant in the documents of the complaint - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, having considered the material available on record, taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Summons were issued to the accused and he is making appearance, prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner/accused. Hence, at this stage, this Court cannot quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013. The criminal petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Consistency in the name of the complainant in legal documents.
3. Applicability of the principle laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh case.
4. Prima facie case for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013, arguing that the complainant's case should be filed in the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, where the drawee bank is located. The petitioner relied on the Dashrath Rupsingh case initially. However, the court highlighted the amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act in 2015, which modified the territorial jurisdiction rule. As per the amendment, the complaint can be filed in the court where the cheque is dishonored, making the complaint in Vikarabad maintainable.

2. Consistency in Complainant's Name:
The petitioner raised concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant's name across legal documents. The court noted the different variations of the complainant's name but emphasized that when a cheque is issued in favor of a particular name, that individual is entitled to file a case under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonor of the cheque. Thus, the court did not find merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the inconsistency in the complainant's name.

3. Applicability of Dashrath Rupsingh Principle:
The petitioner's counsel attempted to rely on the Dashrath Rupsingh case principle regarding territorial jurisdiction. However, the court pointed out the subsequent amendment to the law, which altered the jurisdictional rule. The court clarified that the petitioner could not rely on the principle established in the Dashrath Rupsingh case due to the legislative changes introduced by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.

4. Prima Facie Case for Quashing Proceedings:
Referring to the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, the court highlighted that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is limited to preventing abuse of process or ensuring justice. The court emphasized that if a prima facie case exists, disclosing the offense's elements, the High Court cannot quash the proceedings. In this case, since the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, had taken cognizance of the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act, and a prima facie case was established, the court could not quash the proceedings at that stage.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the criminal petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's request to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2013. The interim stay granted earlier was vacated, and any pending miscellaneous petitions in the criminal case were closed.