Full Text
PRIKNIT RETAILS LTD. «& ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Mr. B.N.
Mishra and Mr. Afsar Nabi, Advocates
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. K.K. Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2
(ii) CRL.M.C. 520/2013 & CrLM.A. No.1693/2013
PRIKNIT RETAILS LTD. & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Mr. B.N.
Mishra and Mr. Afsar Nabi, Advocates
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. K.K. Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2
11.09.2013 Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.3965/1/11 titled Sumitsu
Crl.M.C.518 & 520 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7303
Apparels v. Priknit Retails Ltd. & Others [in Crl.M.C. 518/2013] and
Criminal Complaint No.3964/1/2011 titled Sumitsu Apparels v. Priknit
Retails Ltd. d Others [in Crl.M.C. 520/2013], is sought in above captioned twopetitions onthe ground of lackof territorial jurisdiction.
Boththese petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for petitionersthat the matter of lack of territorial jurisdiction in Complaints under Section
138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is pending before the Three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court and so, the proceedings before the trial court ought to be stayed, as has been already done in another similar matter i.e. Crl.M.C. No.3977/2013 vide orderof V'December, 2011 by a
Coordinate Bench ofthis Court.
To urge the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel for petitioners had placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex
Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma 2013 (7) SCALE
ORDER
753. Reference was also made to an order of 22°*^ February, 2012 in Crl.M.C. 3977/2011 Vijay Ghai and Anr. v. BonMart InternationalLtd. of a Division Bench ofthis Court wherein proceedings have been kept in abeyance till the decision on the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction in Complaints under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881 is finally determined by the Apex Court. Upon hearing and on perusal of the instant Complaint (Annexure P-I) and the decisions cited, I find that Apex Court in Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC 485 has aptly observed that the question of lack territorial jurisdiction is an issue which depends upon,CrlMC.518&520of2013 Page 2 facts of each case and upon being summoned, accused in case under > Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should approach the trial court with suitable application raising question of lack of territorial jurisdiction and should not rush tothe Higher Courts. Pertinently, neither in Nishant Aggarwal (supra) nor in Vijay Ghai (supra), the decision of Apex Court in Krishan Kumar (supra) was brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, finding myselfin complete agreement with the ratio of the Apex Court's decision in Krishan Kumar (supra), both these petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction before the trial court by moving an application within a period of four weeks' from today and if such an application is received by the trial court, it shall be decided by a speaking order returning a specific finding whether the trial court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints in question. Tillsucha decision is taken by the trial court, personal appearance of petitioners be not insisted upon provided they are duly represented before the trial court and subject to their counsel not seeking adjournment. Both these petitions and the applications are disposed of accordingly. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge SEPTEMBER 11,2013 s