Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.2040/2015 Page 1 I- 45 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 15, 2015
Date of Decision: May 15, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2040/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.7271-73/2015
MAKEMYTRIP ( INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain & Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocates
MAKEMYTRIP ( INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain & Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .. Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Vide impugned order, petitioner’s complaint under Section 138 of
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been returned on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction while relying upon Apex Court’s decision in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129.
Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order and relies upon decisions of High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2362/2014, Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., rendered on 25th August, 2014 and Apex Court’s order of 20th March, 2015 in Special Leave Petition No.7251/2014 in Ramanbhai
Mathurbhai Patel (Supra) and decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
2015:DHC:4359 Crl.M.C.No.2040/2015 Page 2 Court in Crl. M.C.No. 4407/2014 M/S Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) & ors., rendered on 16th December, 2014 and Apex
Court’s order of 13th January, 2015 in Special Leave Petition No. 134-
170/2015 in M/S Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (Supra); decision ofa
Coordinate Bench of this Court of 5th December, 2014 in Crl M.C.No.
5555/2014 CISCO System Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nartech Infonet
Pvt. Ltd. & ors. and Apex Court’s decision in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod
Vs. Stae of Maharashtra & anr. (2014) 9 SCC 1291 to submit that the cheques in question were ‘payable at par’ at all the branches of Barclays
Bank Limited in India and so, return of complaint in question is bad in law. However, it is submitted that in pursuance to the summons issued, respondent-accused had not appeared before the trial court.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the question raised in this petition already stands answered by this Court in Crl. M.C.No.700/2012
Neerav J Shah & anr. Vs. State & anr., decided on 23rd March, 2015.
In view of above, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2015 r 2015:DHC:4359
Vide impugned order, petitioner’s complaint under Section 138 of
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been returned on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction while relying upon Apex Court’s decision in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129.
Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order and relies upon decisions of High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2362/2014, Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., rendered on 25th August, 2014 and Apex Court’s order of 20th March, 2015 in Special Leave Petition No.7251/2014 in Ramanbhai
Mathurbhai Patel (Supra) and decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
2015:DHC:4359 Crl.M.C.No.2040/2015 Page 2 Court in Crl. M.C.No. 4407/2014 M/S Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) & ors., rendered on 16th December, 2014 and Apex
Court’s order of 13th January, 2015 in Special Leave Petition No. 134-
170/2015 in M/S Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (Supra); decision ofa
Coordinate Bench of this Court of 5th December, 2014 in Crl M.C.No.
5555/2014 CISCO System Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nartech Infonet
Pvt. Ltd. & ors. and Apex Court’s decision in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod
Vs. Stae of Maharashtra & anr. (2014) 9 SCC 1291 to submit that the cheques in question were ‘payable at par’ at all the branches of Barclays
Bank Limited in India and so, return of complaint in question is bad in law. However, it is submitted that in pursuance to the summons issued, respondent-accused had not appeared before the trial court.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the question raised in this petition already stands answered by this Court in Crl. M.C.No.700/2012
Neerav J Shah & anr. Vs. State & anr., decided on 23rd March, 2015.
In view of above, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2015 r 2015:DHC:4359