Dismissed

Mr.Kaushal Prasad Singh, v. M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited

Telangana HC12 Jul 2012CRLP/5391/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It held that facts regarding the issue of cheque, jurisdiction, and place of transaction require trial court evidence and cannot be determined now. Thus, no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice is made out.

What did the court decide?

No intervention was granted; the Criminal Petition seeking quashing of proceedings was rejected.

Mr.Kaushal Prasad Singh, Vs M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5391 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under

¶5

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first respondent filed the private complaint in the lower Court on the basis of dishonored cheque for Rs.6,11,000/- said to have been issued by the accused towards discharge of part of the liability in the transactions between the complainant and the accused. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the said cheque was not issued towards discharge of the alleged debt in the year 2010, but this cheque and another cheque were delivered by the accused to the complainant in the year 2008 at the time of taking dealership of the complainant by the accused at Samasthipur of Bihar and that taking advantage of one of those cheques, the complainant filed the present case. It is a question of fact whether the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of pre-existing liability or was issued as a security at the time of taking dealership. The said question of fact cannot be gone into and decided in this

¶6

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot be called upon to look into the various private documents filed by the petitioner, which are stated to be between the parties. It is for the petitioner to file all the original documents before the trial Court and prove the same in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and put forward his contention based on the proved facts and documents and receive a finding thereon from the trial Court after trial.

¶7

It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire transactions took place in Samasthipur, Bihar State. According to the petitioner, the dealership was entered into at Samasthipur and the goods were delivered at Samasthipur and the cheques were delivered at Samasthipur. Though the cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Warsinagar, Samasthipur, Bihar, the said cheque was presented through the first respondent’s banker H.D.F.C.Bank, Lakdi-ka-pul Branch, Hyderabad for realization of the amount. Head office of the first respondent is located in Hyderabad. Placing reliance on M/s.Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s.National Panasonic India

¶8

Ltd.^[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended that mere issuance of notice from Hyderabad before filing the complaint will not clothe jurisdiction on the courts at Hyderabad. According to the first respondent, the transactions took place at Hyderabad. The question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts. It is only on proof of facts relating to the jurisdiction, the law of jurisdiction fallows. It is not as if this Court has to take whatever is pleaded by the petitioner/accused in this petition. It is for the accused to prove those facts on the basis of which he raised plea of jurisdiction and it is only on proof of the factual basis during trial by filing necessary documents and leading oral evidence in support of those documents, then it has to be decided whether the lower Court at Hyderabad has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same or not. In case, the lower Court finds after trial that there is no territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the complaint, the lower Court cannot dismiss the complaint, but has to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same. In that view of the matter, as there are controversial facts which are to be proved by evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence

¶9

Act, this Court cannot say that there is any abuse of process of law in instituting the complaint in the lower Court at Hyderabad or

¶10

that there is any miscarriage of justice.

¶11

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶12

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.

¶13

12^th July 2012 Rns

¶14

[1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1168

Mr.Kaushal Prasad Singh, v. M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Kaushal Prasad Singh, v. M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tatikonda Ravi Prasanth Reddy , Prasanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Savidisetty Ramana , Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vaditya Krishna , Tulasi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Raheem , Raheem Ramish Vs The State

M.a.Raheem , Raheem Ramish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Roshan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh