The only question that primarily arises for
our
consideration is whether the Courts in Delhi had the
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the facts and
circumstances of the case especially when issue of statutory
notices was the only reason urged by the respondent-
complainant for filing a complaint in Delhi. Issue of a
statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amount
is, in our opinion, not sufficient to vest the Delhi Courts with
the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the case.
We say so on the authority of the decision of this Court in
Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic
India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this aspect was
examined at length. This Court ruled that issue of a
statutory
notice
cannot
constitute
a valid
ground for
conferring jurisdiction upon the Court concerned to take
cognizance of an offence under Section 138. That position
has been reiterated in a recent decision delivered on 1 st
August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod
v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Criminal Appeal
No.2287 of 2009. In Dashrath Rupsingh’s case (supra)
this Court has overruled the earlier decision delivered by a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in
K. Bhaskaran v.
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510
upon which the respondent sought to place reliance in
support of their contention that Delhi Court could exercise
jurisdiction based on the fact that notice of demand of the
cheque amount was issued from Delhi.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.197 / 2012
M/s Apex Distributors & Anr.
Versus
M/s Timex Group India Ltd.
Citation;2014(3) crimes 435 SC
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1.
In this petition under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C., the
petitioners seek transfer of Criminal Complaint No.3960 of
2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
House Court at New Delhi to the Court competent to try the
same at Pondicherry. The cheque in question appears to
have been issued on Vyasya Bank Ltd., Vellore, Tamil Nadu.
When presented for encashment the same was dishonoured,
whereupon, the respondent got notices issued to the
1
Page 1
petitioners asking them to pay the cheque amount within
the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of the
receipt of the said notices. Failure of the petitioners to make
the payment led to the filing of criminal complaint No.3960
of 2008 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House,
New Delhi in which the Court took cognizance and issued
summons to the petitioners. The complaint, it is noteworthy,
justified the institution of the case in Delhi on the solitary
ground that the statutory notices demanding payment of the
cheque amount had been issued to the petitioners from
Delhi. In para 13 of the complaint, the complainant said:
“That the cause of action has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in as much as the
notice of demand for the Cheque amount was issued
to all the Accused from Delhi.
Therefore, this
Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try
and decide the present complaint.”
2.
The petitioners’ case, in the present transfer petition, is
that the cheque in question was not in discharge of any debt
or liability but had been given to the respondent-company
by way of security. Dishonour of any such cheque was not,
according to the petitioners, an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Act aforementioned. That apart, the
2
Page 2
petitioners claim that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint. Simply because the statutory
notices were issued to the petitioners from Delhi did not
clothe the Courts in Delhi to take cognizance of the offence
assuming that the same had been committed. Multiple
ailments of Petitioner No.2 are also urged as a ground for
transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Pondicherry.
3.
The only question that primarily arises for
our
consideration is whether the Courts in Delhi had the
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the facts and
circumstances of the case especially when issue of statutory
notices was the only reason urged by the respondent-
complainant for filing a complaint in Delhi. Issue of a
statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amount
is, in our opinion, not sufficient to vest the Delhi Courts with
the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the case.
We say so on the authority of the decision of this Court in
Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic
India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this aspect was
examined at length. This Court ruled that issue of a
statutory
notice
cannot
constitute
a valid
ground for
conferring jurisdiction upon the Court concerned to take
cognizance of an offence under Section 138. That position
has been reiterated in a recent decision delivered on 1 st
August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod
v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Criminal Appeal
No.2287 of 2009. In Dashrath Rupsingh’s case (supra)
this Court has overruled the earlier decision delivered by a
two-Judge Bench of this Court in
K. Bhaskaran v.
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510
upon which the respondent sought to place reliance in
support of their contention that Delhi Court could exercise
jurisdiction based on the fact that notice of demand of the
cheque amount was issued from Delhi.
4.
In the circumstances and keeping in view the admitted
factual position that the cheque in question was dishonoured
at Vellore where the bank on which it was drawn is located,
we
see
no
reason
why
the
complaint
filed
by
the
respondents should not be transferred to Vellore for further
proceedings. The fact that petitioner No.2 is suffering from
several medical problems will also, in our opinion, be taken
care by the transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Vellore.
5.
We accordingly allow this petition and direct transfer
Criminal Complaint No.3960 of 2008 titled M/s Timex
Group India Ltd. v. M/s Apex Distributers & Anr. from
Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts in New Delhi
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vellore who shall try the
case himself or transfer the same to any other Court
competent to try the same. No costs.
................................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi,
August 5, 2014
.................................................J.
(C. NAGAPPAN)
5
Page 5
No comments:
Post a Comment