Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 444 - KERALA HIGH COURTDishonour of Cheque - jurisdiction to entertain a complaint - cheque was presented for collection through State Bank of India, Chennithala branch, Alappuzha District, within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Chengannur - complainant at present residing within the jurisdiction of Chengannur Court - Section 142(2)(a) or (b) of the NI Act. When the payee or holder in due course presents a cheque through an account maintained by the payee or holder in due course in a bank within the jurisdiction of a court, whether the court, where the cheque was presented for collection, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act? HELD THAT:- As per the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court, while overruling the ratio of the decision in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in [1999 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT], held An interpretation should not be imparted to S.138 which will render it as a device of harassment i.e. by sending notices from a place which has no casual connection with the transaction itself, and/or by presenting the cheque(s) at any of the banks where the payee may have an account. Indubitably, Section 142 of the NI Act was amended and Section 142-A was introduced with effect from 15.06.2015, to clarify the jurisdictional issue and to address the crisis of transfer of cases as per the ratio in Dashrath Rupsingh’s case [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT]. The word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act has no significance and significance must be given to the text ‘for collection through an account’. That is to say, delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction. Therefore, challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners referring definition of the word ‘delivered’ contemplated under Section 46 of the NI Act could not succeed. This petition is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
|