Full Text
Translation output
$-2 «& 3 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2635/2010
VIPUL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 2635/2010
VIPUL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CRL.M.C. 2643/2010
VIPUL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
VIPUL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.10.2013 Crl.M.A. No.16494/2013 in Crl. M.C. No. 2635/2013
Dismissed, as not pressed.
30.10.2013 Crl.M.A. No.16494/2013 in Crl. M.C. No. 2635/2013
Dismissed, as not pressed.
CRL.M.C. 2635/2010
CRL.M.C. 2643/2010
CrlM.C. No. 2635/2010 Page 1 Crl. M.C. No. 2643/2010
2013:DHC:6879 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of impugned order of 6^ July, 2010 is sought whereby petitioner's complaint CC No. 120/1
& CC No. 121/1, both titled as M/S Vipul Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. M/S Uni Fashions Pvt. Ltd. & ANR. and under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 have been returned to petitioner/ complainant at thepre summoning stage while holding that the trial court has no territorialjurisdiction to entertainthe aforesaid complaints.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since respondent/accused are not summoned by the trial court, therefore, they are not required to be put to notice in these two petitions. It is fiirther submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that quashing ofthe impugned order is sought on identical grounds. Thus, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Impugned order relies upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Online Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2010 (1) JCC 27
(NI) to hold that the petitioner/complainant bank, where the cheques in question were presented, does not have territorial jurisdiction.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance up6n recent Apex Court decision in Nishant Aggarwal Vs. Kailash
Kumar Sharma 2013 (7) SCALE 753 to assert that payer and payee can file complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the place of their residence and so, the impugned order relying upon decision in Online Shoppe (supra) is ofno avail and thus, impugned order deserves to be quashed and petitioner's afore-noted two complaints ought to be restored.
Crl. M.C. No. 2635/2010 Page 2 Crl. M.C. No. 2643/2010 upon hearing and on perusalof the impugned order, the complaints in question and the decisions cited, I find that there is a specific averment in the complaint in question that the cheques in question were presented to the Yes Bank at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi for clearance on 25 February, 2010 and so, while applying the dictum of the Apex Court in
Nishant Agganval (supra), the impugned order is quashed, as the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque in question is presented will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The above noted two complaints are directed to be restored and the trial court is directed to entertain petitioner's complaints on merits and to proceed further forthwith.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions are disposed of Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
OCTOBER 30, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CrlM.C. No. 2635/2010 Page3 Crl.M.C. No. 2643/2010
CrlM.C. No. 2635/2010 Page 1 Crl. M.C. No. 2643/2010
2013:DHC:6879 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of impugned order of 6^ July, 2010 is sought whereby petitioner's complaint CC No. 120/1
& CC No. 121/1, both titled as M/S Vipul Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. M/S Uni Fashions Pvt. Ltd. & ANR. and under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 have been returned to petitioner/ complainant at thepre summoning stage while holding that the trial court has no territorialjurisdiction to entertainthe aforesaid complaints.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since respondent/accused are not summoned by the trial court, therefore, they are not required to be put to notice in these two petitions. It is fiirther submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that quashing ofthe impugned order is sought on identical grounds. Thus, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Impugned order relies upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Online Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2010 (1) JCC 27
(NI) to hold that the petitioner/complainant bank, where the cheques in question were presented, does not have territorial jurisdiction.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance up6n recent Apex Court decision in Nishant Aggarwal Vs. Kailash
Kumar Sharma 2013 (7) SCALE 753 to assert that payer and payee can file complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the place of their residence and so, the impugned order relying upon decision in Online Shoppe (supra) is ofno avail and thus, impugned order deserves to be quashed and petitioner's afore-noted two complaints ought to be restored.
Crl. M.C. No. 2635/2010 Page 2 Crl. M.C. No. 2643/2010 upon hearing and on perusalof the impugned order, the complaints in question and the decisions cited, I find that there is a specific averment in the complaint in question that the cheques in question were presented to the Yes Bank at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi for clearance on 25 February, 2010 and so, while applying the dictum of the Apex Court in
Nishant Agganval (supra), the impugned order is quashed, as the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque in question is presented will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The above noted two complaints are directed to be restored and the trial court is directed to entertain petitioner's complaints on merits and to proceed further forthwith.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions are disposed of Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
OCTOBER 30, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CrlM.C. No. 2635/2010 Page3 Crl.M.C. No. 2643/2010
JUDGMENT