Swagata Adhikary v. Consortium Securities P. Ltd.

2. On 23.04.20L0, the Petitioner through counsel moved an application for rejection/return of the complaint filed by the Respondent. On 04.06.2010, arguments were heard by the learned Trial Judge from both the sides on the aforesaid application and reserved for orders. On 11.11.2010, the arguments were again advanced by both the learned counsel for parties because of the transfer of the Presiding Officer. Vide order dated L0.L2'2OlO, learned Trial Judge dismissed the application after holding that only recourse available to the accused/ Petitioner is to move to the High Court under Section 482 Cr P C for the relevant orders in the c CrL.M.C. No.436i2011[1] Page L of 4 2011:DHC:15420 b light of the case Adalat Prasad Vs Roop Lal lindal: (2OOa) 7 scc 338.

3. By the instant petition, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated L0.12.2010 of the learned Trial Judge whereby the application moved by the Petitioner before the learned Trial Judge was that the Petitioner was working and resident of Kolkata, the cheques in question were drawn on United Bank of India, Kali Temple Road, Kolkata and the said cheques were dishonoured by the bank situated in Kolkata. The Petitioner has relied upon the orders in the case of Surjeet Singh Vs. M/s. G. E. Capital Transport Financial Services passed on 22.01-.2010, in case where the facts are almost identical to the present case; which clearly shows that the complaint was not maintainable in Delhi Courts.

4. lt has been specifically held by this Court while relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court that the deposit of the cheques with the bankers of the Respondent in Delhi does not confer the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts when the cheque present to a bank outside the Delhi, Further sending of notice from Delhi to Raipur also does not confer jurisdiction in Delhi Courts.

5. ln the case of Ms,Hema chaturvedi vs, M/s Sunint Enterprises Pvt Ltd: 207L (7) tCC (NI) 7 wherein in para No.4 it has been observed that the complaint had been filed in Delhi since Respondent is having its Registered Office at Delhi; its bank, where cheque was deposited, is in Delhi as also because the notice had been issued by the Respondent from its Registered Office at Delhi. As was decided in the said judgment, if the Registered Office is at Delhi, its bank is in Delhi and notice has been issued from Delhi, o CrL.M.C. No.436/2011[1] g t would not vest the territorial jurisdiction on Delhi courts or entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act,

1881.

6. The present case is on similar facts and circumstances to the present case and transaction took place at Kolkata, cheques issued from Kolkata and the Petitioner is also resident of Kolkata; the Respondent presented the cheque in Delhi bank and they had their registered office at Delhi.

7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has pointed out that during trial, Petitioner came forward to settle the issue and accordingly he deposited the amount of T. 50,000/- in the Court on the first date of hearing itself, when he appeared on summoning. The same was accepted by the Respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was interested to settle the disputes. Thereafter, he filed the instant petition in this Court after coming the judgment of Ms.Hema Chaturvedi (supra) '

8. Learned counsel for Respondent fairly submits that they have no objection, if the case is transferred to Kolkata.

9. In the light of Ms,Hema Chaturvedi (supra), I direct learned Trial Judge to handover the copy of the complaint to the Respondent who shall file the same at Kolkata, if he so advised'

10. Needless to say that the Respondent is at liberty to take the certified copies of any documents of the petition filed before this Court.

11. Criminal M.C. No.436l20LI is allowed in the above terms. L[2]. ln view of above, Criminal M. A. No.1700/20LL become infructuous. JULY L[4],?OLL MK I V SURESH KAIT,' I c