2023 (11) TMI 1117 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the case - bone of contention by the petitioners is that the complainant who was initially maintaining his account in Nanganallur Branch of Indusind Bank, had given a request on 12/04/2022 to transfer his account to Kilpauk Branch - HELD THAT - At the outset it has to be recorded that, the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 empowers the Magistrate to try complaints under Section 138 of NI Act summarily. Therefore, the trial Court, which has taken cognizance of the complaint and proceeded to try as summary trial, is well within the law and Clause (m) of Section 461 of Cr.P.C will not apply to the facts of this case - At the most, it could be error of taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C and proceeding thereon. Such irregularity will not vitiate the trial. Whether the trial Court has assumed territorial jurisdiction, which is not vested on it? - HELD THAT - Having given request for transfer to Kilpauk Branch and presenting the cheque at Kilpauk Branch, the complaint is filed before Metroplitan Magistrate (FTC-1) Egmore, which deemed to have territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners on receipt of the summons from the Court had participated in the trial cross examined the complainant and also marshalled their witnesses. At the fag end of the trial, he had filed the petition to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In view of this Court, the request for transfer of his account to Kilpauk Branch made by the complainant on 12/04/2022, which is prior to the presentation of the cheques and subsequent presentation of the cheques at Kilpauk branch saves the complaint from being vitiated. The irregularity what so ever had not caused prejudice to either side, the petition filed after examining the witnesses and at the fag end of the trial is another factor which desists this court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the peculiarity of the facts in this case, a strict interpretation of the explanation to Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act will be against the spirit of the legislative intend. The trial Court had considered the law and facts, balancing the interest of either side with reasoning had dismissed the petition. On appreciation of law and facts, which are unique to the present case, this Court hold that the order of the trial Court is well based on law and fact and to be confirmed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore to try the case due to the location of the bank branch where the cheques were presented for collection.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Challenge
The petitioners, accused in a case under section 138 of the NI Act, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore to try the case. They argued that the complainant's bank account was at Nanganallur branch when the cheques were presented for collection at Kilpauk branch, thus questioning the jurisdiction of the court. The trial court dismissed the petition, stating that the delay in transferring the account to Kilpauk branch did not vitiate the proceedings as the cheques were presented correctly and the complaint was filed within the jurisdiction of Egmore court.

Issue 2: Application of Legal Provisions
The judgment examines the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Section 142(2)(a), which determines the jurisdiction based on the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account. The court analyzed the facts of the case, including the communication of the account transfer request to Kilpauk branch, the presentation of cheques at Kilpauk branch, and the subsequent legal proceedings.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Precedents
The judgment considers various legal precedents related to territorial jurisdiction in cases under the NI Act, such as M/s Modi Cements Ltd vs. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi and Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana, to understand the application of law in the present case. The court emphasizes the unique facts of the case and the need to interpret the law in light of these specific circumstances.

Conclusion:
After thorough examination of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents, the court upholds the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition challenging jurisdiction. The court finds that the delay in transferring the bank account does not invalidate the proceedings, and the complaint was rightfully filed within the jurisdiction of the Egmore court. The judgment affirms the legality of the trial proceedings and allows the trial court to continue with the case without any legal impediment.