9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the Trial Magistrate), whereby cognizance of the offences has been taken and the process has been issued against the petitioner. 2. It appears that a complaint came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner and M/s ANN Infrastructure before the learned Trial Magistrate alleging therein that a cheque in the amount of Rs. 60 lacs was issued by the petitioner from his account maintained with Axis Bank Limited Jammu in discharge of his liability towards the respondent. It has been further pleaded in the complaint that when the said cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant for encashment through his banker ICICI Bank Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of an affidavit, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Trial Magistrate was obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and to record the statement of the complainant on oath before issuing process against the petitioner. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that the complaint has remained pending before the learned Trial Court for more than two years but the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the learned Trial Magistrate without raising any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. He has further contended that even during the pendency of the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited, Sector 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the Courts at Jammu have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the impugned complaint. 9. In the above context, it would be apt to refer to the provisions contained in section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which read as under: "142. Cognizance of offences.- [(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque is delivered for collection i.e. branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction. 12. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Sh. Sendhuragro and Oil Industries v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 2025 Livelaw SC 292 has explained the provisions contained in section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with Explanation thereto in the following manner: "61. It is clear on a reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto that, for the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. 14. The provisions contained in section 177 of the Cr.P.C. do not apply to cases under Negotiable Instruments Act while determining the territorial jurisdiction of a court because Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act begins with a non obstinate clause and Section 142 (2) uses the expression "only" meaning thereby only those courts which are mentioned in the said sub section will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint notwithstanding anything contrary provided under the Cr.P.C. 15. Adverting to the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Sohan Singh and others v General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and others, 1984(Supp) SCC 661, Municipal Commissoner, Calcutta and others v Salil Kumar Banerjee and others, (2000) 4 SCC 108 and Rukmani Devi and others v Narendra Lal Gupta, (1985) 1 SCC 144. 17. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent are of no help to the case of the respondent because in all these cases, the proceedings pertained to either arbitration matters or to proceedings under certain special statutes. Besides this, in all these cases, the jurisdiction of the authorities was challenged after the authorities had already decided the matter against the party challenging the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
