Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 366 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of appeal - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction of courts - High Court directed return of all complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in which the Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi have taken cognizance only because the statutory notices in terms of proviso to Section 138 of the Act have been issued to the drawers of the cheque from Delhi - Held that:- The order passed by the High Court simply directs return of complaints in cases where the same have been filed only because the statutory notices have been issued from Delhi. The direction proceeds on the basis that issue of statutory notices from Delhi by itself is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts to entertain the complaints. An offence under Section 138 is committed no sooner the cheque issued on an account maintained by the drawer with a bank and representing discharge of a debt or a liability in full or part is dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds or on the ground that the same exceeds the arrangements made with the banker. Prosecution of the offender and cognizance of the commission of the offence is, however, deferred by the proviso to Section 138 till such time the complainant has the cause of action to institute such proceedings. This Court found that the proviso to Section 138 does not constitute ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138. Issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of the cheque in a Delhi bank by the payee or receipt of the notice by the accused demanding payment in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi. What is important is whether the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situate within the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance. In that view, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which simply requires the Magistrate to examine and return the complaints if they do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same in the light of the legal position as stated in Harman’s case (2008 (12) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). All that we need to add is that while examining the question of jurisdiction the Metropolitan Magistrates concerned to whom the High Court has issued directions shall also keep in view the decision of this Court in Dashrath’s case (2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT) - Decided against Appellant.
|