Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Mrs. Arti d/o Amar Pandey challenging an order dated 30th October 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No.1180 of 2009. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.10), Nagpur, in a summary criminal case for alleged offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused persons, who were in the business of sale and purchase of gold ornaments under the name 'Mayura Jewelers' at Borivali, Mumbai, approached her at Nagpur on 5th July 2008 to purchase her old gold ornaments. They issued five cheques totaling Rs.19,99,950/- drawn on Dena Bank, Borivali Branch, Mumbai, all dated 20th December 2008. The cheques were dishonoured, leading to the complaint filed at Nagpur. The JMFC issued process on 30.7.2009. The accused challenged the process before the Sessions Judge, who quashed it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the courts at Nagpur had no jurisdiction as the drawee bank was in Mumbai. The revision applicant argued that since the accused approached her at Nagpur, the cause of action arose at Nagpur. The High Court, after hearing the respondents' counsel (the applicant was absent), dismissed the revision, agreeing with the Sessions Judge that the territorial jurisdiction lies where the drawee bank is situated, i.e., Mumbai. The court held that the offence under Section 138 NI Act is completed only when the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank, and therefore the place of the drawee bank determines jurisdiction. The revision was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 177 CrPC - Offence under Section 138 NI Act - The court held that the place where the drawee bank is situated is the relevant place for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the offence is completed only when the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank. In this case, the cheques were drawn on Dena Bank, Borivali Branch, Mumbai, and therefore the courts at Mumbai had jurisdiction, not Nagpur. (Paras 2-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Territorial Jurisdiction - The court upheld the Sessions Judge's order quashing the process issued by the JMFC Nagpur, as the complaint was filed at Nagpur while the drawee bank was in Mumbai. The court noted that the complainant's argument that the accused approached her at Nagpur did not confer jurisdiction on Nagpur courts. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was correct in setting aside the order of issuance of process on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, given that the cheques were drawn on a bank in Mumbai and the complaint was filed in Nagpur.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which set aside the issuance of process. The court held that the territorial jurisdiction for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lies where the drawee bank is situated, and in this case, the drawee bank was in Mumbai, not Nagpur.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction for filing complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 is determined by the location of the drawee bank branch where the cheque is presented for payment
- Territorial jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement of parties
- Section 138 NI Act creates a strict liability offence but territorial jurisdiction is a matter of law
- not waiver
