Transfer Petition - Sec.138 of N.I.Act - Territorial -Jurisdiction - Cheque bounced at Vellore Bank - Statutory notice issued at Delhi - case at Delhi - Apex court held that earlier decisions K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 was over ruled on 1st August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 - Hence the case is transfered from Delhi to Vellore =
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 1st 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.
2014- Aug. Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41809
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.197 / 2012
M/s Apex Distributors & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
M/s Timex Group India Ltd. …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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 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 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 1st 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)
…………………………..……………..J.
New Delhi, (C. NAGAPPAN)
August 5, 2014
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 1st 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.
2014- Aug. Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41809
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.197 / 2012
M/s Apex Distributors & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
M/s Timex Group India Ltd. …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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 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 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 1st 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)
…………………………..……………..J.
New Delhi, (C. NAGAPPAN)
August 5, 2014
