Anup Kumar Das v. M/S Xerox India Ltd.

1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2008 by which after taking cognizance, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.182/1/09 M/s Xerox India Ltd.Vs.M/s Anup Creation & Anr. summoned the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and have examined the record. Complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent. Vide order 2013:DHC:1304 dated 26.02.2008 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not disputed that the petitioners were carrying on business at Kolkata. The respondents have registered office at 503, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector 18, Noida, U.P. and Branch Office at Kolkata. The transaction was entered into for maintenance of equipments at Kolkata. Cheque No.233277 dated 29.03.2007 for the sum of `50,000/ drawn on Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata was issued in favour of complainant-company. The petitioners also filed on record cheque receipt dated 24.02.2010 whereby the cheque for `17438 was received by the complainant-company at Kolkata. Again receipt dated 27.02.2010 reveals that another cheque for a sum of `81,005 was handed over to the complainant company at Kolkata. The petitioners have also filed invoice/bills issued by the authorised representatives of the complainant company at Kolkata. Petitioners further placed on record the ‘Memorandum Of Cheques Unpaid’ by Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata, whereby the cheque in question was returned with remarks ‘funds insufficient’. The respondents did not place any document to show that the cheque in question was deposited by them in City Bank at Delhi as alleged in the complaint. The respondents did not deny genuineness of the documents brought on record by the petitioners. All these documents reveals that cause of action arose only within the jurisdiction of Kolkata. No part of transaction took place in Delhi. The cheque in question was also not dishonoured in Delhi as a drawer bank of the petitioners is in Kolkata.

3. Counsel for the respondents urged that the ‘demand notice’ was issued to the petitioners from Delhi. This aspect was dealt in detail in Shri Raj Travels and Tours Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Destination of the World (Subcontinent) Private Ltd. in Crl.M.C.Nos.1056, 1166, 1171, 1172,1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1178, 1179, 1181, 1183, 1186, 1187 and 1188 of 2011 decided on 21.09.2011. It was specifically held that mere sending of notice from Delhi would not give rise to cause of action for having cognizance under the Act.

4. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the contents of complaint case do not reveal if any part of cause of action accrued to the complainant at Delhi. Since the Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to return the complaint to the respondent for filing in a court having territorial jurisdiction.

5. The petition and Crl.M.A.No.5184/2011 stand disposed off.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE March 08, 2013 sa