JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioner Ankit Goyal has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the orders dated 29.5.2015 (Annexure P-24) and 28.8.2015 (Annexure P-27). Vide order dated 29.5.2015, learned Magistrate had dismissed the application moved by the petitioner-accused for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction, whereas vide order dated 28.8.2015, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition against order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani.
(2.)Briefly stated, the respondent-complainant has filed the criminal complaint against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the case was pending before the trial Court, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction on the premises that the cheques in question were never issued in favour of the respondentcomplainant, rather, the same were stolen in the area of Chirawa City, Rajasthan and this fact was brought to the notice of the concerned bank as well as the local police of Chirawa. Despite the aforesaid report, the complainant filed the present complaint on the basis of the aforesaid cheques. It was further pleaded that the drawee bank is situated at Chirawa and, therefore, the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction was sought with a further direction that the matter be transferred to the learned Court having jurisdiction over the matter i.e. Chirawa in Rajasthan.
(3.)The learned Magistrate had dismissed the application of the petitioner-accused vide order dated 29.5.2015 by observing as under:
"6. In this case, the complainant has sought transfer of the case on the ground that drawee Bank is situated in Chirawa.
However, it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as K. Bhaskaran versus Shankaran Vaidyan, 1999 AIR(SC) 3762 that the complaint under section 138 NI. Act can also be filed where the cheque was presented for encashment.
In the present case, the cheques were presented for encashment in Bhiwani, therefore, the Court at Bhiwani will be jurisdiction to try the case. The judgment of K. Bhaskaran case has been overruled by the Supreme Court in case Dasrath RupSingh Rathod case and the court has held as follows:
"A reading of section 138 NI Act in conjunction with section 138 NI Act in conjunction with section 177 Cr.P.C. leaves no manner of doubt that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the place where the offence is committed. Hence, complaint can be filed before the Magistrate where cheque was dishonoured by drawee Bank. Complaint not maintainable at the place where cheque was drawn or delivery of statutory demand notice nor at the place where complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment."
7. However, it is further held by the SC in the Dasrath Singh case that only those were transferred to the court of jurisdiction where post summoning evidence has not started. However, in the present case, post summoning evidence had been started on 6-5-2014 and and the judgment in Dasrath Singh case has been passed on 1-8-2014. In this way, in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present case will not be transferred rather it will be dealt by the Court at Bhiwani only.
Hence, the application in hand is devoid of any merit and resultantly it is dismissed."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.