U.K.D.v.Prasad Rao v. Lala Yoganandalal M
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Orissa dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a notice in a cheque dishonour case filed in Vishakhapatnam, ruling that jurisdiction lies where the cheque was presented and dishonoured under the N.I. Act.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner directed to respond to the notice or approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to question maintainability on merits.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.352 of 2013
U.K.D.V. Prasad Rao …. Petitioner Mr. S.N. Satpathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Lala Yoganandalal and another …. Opposite Parties None
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19.07.2022
- Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the criminal proceeding and issuance of notice in C.C. No.4 of 2013 pending in the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam on the grounds inter alia that the cause of action vis-à-vis the alleged transactions between the parties arose within the State of Orissa and therefore, the impugned action is to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
- The petitioner contends that notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) was received from the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam with the appearance date fixed on 22nd February, 2013 and to submit evidence and answer the charge which is based on vague and false allegations made at the instance of OP No.1. According to the petitioner, his wife rather was served with the legal notice dated 16th August, 2012 demanding payment in relation to alleged sale transaction and thereafter, notice (Annexure-2) was received for her appearance in the complaint case. The details of the transactions have been narrated by the CRLMC No.352 of 2013 Page 1 of 5
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court of Orissa can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint filed before a court in Vishakhapatnam for a cause of action arising in Orissa.
Whether the maintenance of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is determined by the place where the cheque was dishonoured rather than where the transaction took place.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
U.K.D.V. Prasad Rao
- respondent
Lala Yoganandalal
Coram
R.K. Pattanaik
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court