Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, partners of M/s. Sarvadnya Tractors, Amravati, were accused in Criminal Case No.935 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, filed by the respondent, a director of Laxmikant Trading Co. P. Ltd., who claimed to be an authorized stockist of Balwant Tractors for Vidarbha Region. The petitioners moved the trial magistrate for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Chandrapur court lacked territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the entire transaction had taken place at Amravati. The magistrate rejected the application, and the petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, which was also dismissed. The petitioners then filed the present criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The court considered the submissions of both counsel. The respondent's counsel argued that the cheques in question were given at Chandrapur, and therefore the court at Chandrapur had jurisdiction. The court observed that it was not in dispute that the cheques were delivered at Chandrapur. Relying on the principle that the place where the cheque is delivered is a relevant factor for determining jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the court held that the Chandrapur court had jurisdiction. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, confirming the orders of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cheque Dishonour - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The issue was whether the court at Chandrapur had jurisdiction when the transaction occurred at Amravati but cheques were delivered at Chandrapur - The court held that the place where the cheque is delivered is a relevant factor for jurisdiction, and since the cheques were given at Chandrapur, the court at Chandrapur had jurisdiction - The petition was dismissed (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court at Chandrapur had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the underlying transaction took place at Amravati but the cheques were delivered at Chandrapur.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2010 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction for cheque dishonour case is determined by place where cheque is delivered
- not where underlying transaction occurred
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 182
Criminal Writ Petition No.644 of 2013
Mr. N. B. Raut for petitioners, Mr. Y. J. Maheshwari for respondent
Ajay Ramesh Dhole and Kishor S. Chaudhari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2010, which upheld the rejection of the petitioners' application for dismissal of complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.935 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the entire transaction took place at Amravati, and therefore the Chandrapur court had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur rejected the petitioners' application for dismissal of complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the court at Chandrapur had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the underlying transaction took place at Amravati but the cheques were delivered at Chandrapur.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the whole transaction took place at Amravati, so Chandrapur court lacked jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the cheques were given at Chandrapur, conferring jurisdiction on Chandrapur court.
Ratio Decidendi
The place where the cheque is delivered is a relevant factor for determining territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since the cheques were delivered at Chandrapur, the court at Chandrapur had jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
It appears from the record that the respondent claimed to be authorized stockiest of Balwant Tractors for Vidarbha Region.
It is also seen that the cheques in question were given at Chandrapur.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur for dismissal of complaint on jurisdictional grounds, which was rejected. They then filed Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, they filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No.644 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
