Disposed

Debonair Envirotech v. Surjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2014CRM-M/14050/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a petition to quash a cheque dishonour complaint due to alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that jurisdiction lies where the cheque is dishonoured. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial if evidence is recorded, or granted 30 days for the petitioner to file the complaint in Panchkula.

What did the court decide?

Granted 30 days to present the complaint at Panchkula or directed the trial court to conclude the trial if evidence was already recorded.

Debonair Envirotech Vs Surjit Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.09.2014

Debonair Envirotech

...Petitioner

versus

Surjit Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI , J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of complaint No. 23/5.3.2008/3.4.2008 (P-4) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and for quashing of summoning order dated 04.07.2008 (P-5).

¶16

The petitioner-firm had issued three cheques bearing No. 472700 dated 31.12.2007 amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- of Indian Overseas Bank, Cheque No. 472697 dated 02.01.2008 amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- of Indian Overseas Bank and Cheque No. 963264 dated 03.01.2008 of State Bank of Patiala in favour of the complainant. On presentation of these cheques in the bank, the same was returned along with memo dated 7.1.2008 having remarks 'insufficient funds and exceeds arrangements'. A legal notice dated 06.02.2008 (P-2) was issued by the complainant but

¶17

GAURAV 2014.10.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

the accused-petitioner failed to make the payment of cheque amount and hence the complaint (P-4). Thereafter, the petitionerfirm was summoned to face the trial vide order dated 04.07.2008 (P-5) and hence the present petition.

¶21

The summoning order was passed on 04.07.2008 and the present petition has been filed in May, 2012. A period of 04 years had lapse after the summoning orders have been issued to the petitioner-firm. Quashing of complaint (P-4) as well as summoning order is being sought on the ground that the Court at Dera Bassi does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel has relied upon Hon'ble the Supreme Court judgment in a case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. vs. National Panasonic India Ltd. (SC) 2009, (1) RCR (Crl) 458 .

¶22

There was no interim order restraining the trial Court to proceed with the complaint.

¶23

The above said judgment has came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and anr, passed in Crl.A. No. 2287 of 2009, decided on 01.08.2014. In this judgment, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme case in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and Harman Electronics (P) Ltd vs. National Panasonic India Ltd. (SC) 2009, (1) SCC 720 came up for consideration and in paragraph 19, it has been held as under:-

¶24

“19. The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act GAURAV 2014.10.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly the JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the Complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by the JMFC at that place however, can be taken only when the concomitants or constituents contemplated by the Section concatenate with each other. We clarify that the place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the Complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the Complaints even though non-compliance thereof will inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot be contested that considerable confusion prevails on the interpretation of Section 138 in particular and Chapter XVII in general of the NI Act. The vindication of this view is duly manifested by the decisions and conclusion arrived at by the High Courts even in the few cases that we shall decide by this Judgment. We clarify that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc. of the CrPC and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing.The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the

¶28

GAURAV 2014.10.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn.”

¶32

However, keeping in view the pendency of the complaint, it has been decided to direct only those cases where post the summoning and appearance of the alleged accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged under Section 145(2) of the Act will proceeding continue at that place. It is further clarified that regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. The category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred ordinarily possessing territorial jurisidction.

¶33

In the present case, summoning orders have been passed on 04.07.2008 (P-4) and there was no interim stay on the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶34

Applying the ratio of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathore case (supra), if the trial Court has proceeded to record the evidence for the past 06 years, it will deemed to have been transferred as per the judgment. In the present case, the cheques were presented Panchkula and were dishonoured, therefore the appropriate Court to try the complaint is Panchkula.

¶35

GAURAV 2014.10.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M-14050 of 2012 (O&M)

¶37

-5-

¶38

In view of the above, this petition at this stage is being disposed of by giving a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial, if after summoning orders, the evidence of the complainant has been recorded and proceeded with and if the evidence of the complainant has not been recorded, the petitioner-firm shall be granted 30 days w.e.f today to present the above said complaint at Panchkula.

¶39

24.09.2014 G.Arora

¶40

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶41

GAURAV 2014.10.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Debonair Envirotech v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debonair Envirotech v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrish & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Sarabjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sagar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dr. Onkar Vs Hy.St.

Raj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Raj Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Punjab