TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has relied upon Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neko Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609, Harnam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 and a decision of this Court in Online IT Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 2695/2009 and Crl. M.A. No. 9081/2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is based in Ladakh and the bank from which the dishonoured cheque was issued is situated at Panchkula, Haryana. 2. Respondent No. 1 in the reply to the petition has stated that the payments made by the petitioner were credited in the account maintained by respondent No. 1 at Delhi. Respondent No. 1 has filed some of the invoices raised by respondent No. 1 for supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 5. Examining the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases and referring to Sections 177 - 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510, at page 517 it has been observed: 11. We fail to comprehend as to how the trial court could have found so regarding the jurisdiction question. Under Section 177 of the Code every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed . The locality where the Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ope by stating that in case where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area the court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Further again, Section 179 of the Code stretches its scope to a still wider horizon. It reads thus: 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.--When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 13. The above provisions in the Code should have been borne in mind when the question regarding territorial jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 6. In the case of Harman Electronics (supra) which has been followed in Online IT Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the question raised and answered was different as is apparent from the quote from the decision of the Supreme Court; 12. The complaint petition does not show that the cheque was presented at Delhi. It is absolutely silent in that regard. The facility for collection of the cheque admittedly was available at Chandigarh a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... skaran (supra). Perse and ex facie it cannot be said that the act of filing the criminal complaint in Delhi after presentation of the cheque by the respondent-complainant to their bankers in Delhi and its dishonour is ingenious, insidious, guileful or guided by the intention to harass and abuse the process of law. It will not be appropriate to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the initial stage itself and quash the summoning order. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the averments made in the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and the documents filed by the respondent No. 1 with the reply, are not a part of the complaint, pre-summoning affidavit by way of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l courts in Delhi have jurisdiction. This question has now been raised before the High Court and the respondent No. 1 have filed the affidavit and documents and have taken a clear and categorical stand. It is further pointed out that the respondent No. 1 complainant is entitled to file documents even after the accused is summoned. Thus, there is merit in the contention raised by respondent No. 1. In case the learned trial court had raised the said contention it was open to respondent No. 1 to file an additional affidavit and documents to show and establish the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. The said contention has now been raised and has been answered in the reply along with the supporting documents. 11. In view of the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|