Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Saxena, was the accused in Criminal Case No. 2361/SS/2011 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, at the instance of respondent No. 1, Mohammad Sami Ahmed. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit-17) before the Magistrate challenging the territorial jurisdiction, arguing that he was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and the cheque was drawn on ICICI Bank, Noida Branch, so only the court at Noida had jurisdiction. The Magistrate, relying on pre-Dashrath Rathod law, held that the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The petitioner's revision before the Sessions Court was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, which held that only the place where the cheque is dishonoured has jurisdiction under Section 138, with an exception for cases that had reached the stage of Section 145(2) of the NI Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the case had not reached the Section 145(2) stage, the exception did not apply, and the case should be transferred to Noida. The respondent's counsel argued that the cheque was presented at Andheri and dishonoured there, so the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The court analyzed the facts and found that the cheque was presented at Andheri and dishonoured there, and the case had not reached the stage of Section 145(2). Applying the ratio in Dashrath Rathod, the court held that the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138 - Place of Dishonour - The court considered whether the Magistrate at Andheri had jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the cheque was drawn on a bank in Noida and the accused resided in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that as per the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, the place where the cheque is dishonoured has jurisdiction. Since the cheque was presented at Andheri and dishonoured there, the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The exception for cases at the stage of Section 145(2) did not apply as the case was at the initial stage. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the cheque was drawn on a bank in Noida and the accused resided in Uttar Pradesh.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act determined by place of dishonour
- Exception for cases at Section 145(2) stage
- Territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 58
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3457 of 2012
Mr. S. K. Shinde a/w Sagar V. Kasar i/b H.H. Nagi & Assoc. for petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Thatte & Sacheta Joshi for R. No. 1, Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for respondent-State
Mohammad Sami Ahmed, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate and Sessions Court regarding territorial jurisdiction in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings or transfer the case to a court in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate to try the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the cheque was drawn on a bank in Noida and the accused resided in Uttar Pradesh.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application (Exhibit-17) challenging jurisdiction, holding that the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision against that order.
Issues
Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the cheque was drawn on a bank in Noida and the accused resided in Uttar Pradesh.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that as per the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, only the place where the cheque is dishonoured has jurisdiction. Since the cheque was drawn on a bank in Noida, the court at Noida had jurisdiction. The exception for cases at the stage of Section 145(2) did not apply as the case was at the initial stage.
Respondent's counsel argued that the cheque was presented at Andheri and dishonoured there, so the Andheri court had jurisdiction. The case had not reached the stage of Section 145(2), so the exception did not apply.
Ratio Decidendi
The place where the cheque is dishonoured determines the territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129. The exception for cases at the stage of Section 145(2) does not apply to cases at the initial stage.
Judgment Excerpts
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given judgment in the matter of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2014) 9 SCC 129, in which it is stated that the place where the cheque has been dishonoured only will have jurisdiction to try and decide the case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
However, an exception was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of cases which had reached the stage of Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit-17) before the Metropolitan Magistrate challenging jurisdiction. The Magistrate rejected the application. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 145(2)
