K.K. SINGHAL & ORS. versus STEEL STRIPS LTD.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 09-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 239 
K.K. SINGHAL & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STEEL STRIPS LTD. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2546 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 09, 2014 
B 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Dishonour 
of cheque - Criminal proceedings - Settlement between 
parties to the effect that complainant would withdraw criminal c 
proceedings and appellant would make the payment -
Allegation of cheating against appellant on the ground that 
appellant did not fulfill the terms of settlement - Summons -
Application for quashing of summons - Dismissed by High 
Court -
Challenged by appellant on the ground that D 
Chandigarh Court had no territorial jurisdiction since the 
settlement between the parties was entered at Faridabad -
Held: The agreement was entered into at Chandigarh to 
withdraw the criminal proceedings, the complainant having its 
head office at Chandigarh and further nowhere the appellants 
E 
have made out a case that all the cheques were payable at 
Faridabad - Therefore, question of jurisdiction is of no 
consequence, which would be decided by the trial court -
Interference with the order of High Court not called for. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: It was contended for the appellant that 
Chandigarh Court had no territorial jurisdiction since the 
settlement between the parties was entered at Faridabad 
and the appellant having place of business at Faridabad, 
G 
it is the court at Faridabad which would have jurisdiction. 
The contention that the Court at Chandigarh had no 
jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The agreement was 
entered into at Chandigarh to withdraw the criminal 
239 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A proceedings, the complainant having its head office at 
Chandigarh and further nowhere the appellants have 
made out a case that all the cheques were payable at 
Faridabad. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction is of no 
consequence, which would be decided by the trial court. 
B The second point, that the dispute is of civil nature, 
cannot be allowed to stand at this stage after taking into 
account the conduct of the appellants. [Paras 8 and 9] 
[242-C-D; 244-B-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
C No. 2546 of 2014. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 
35963-M/2001. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Siddharth Mittal, Abhinav Mukerji for 
the Appellants. 
Nidhesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, S.K. Verma for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the 
F High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Misc. No. 35963-M of 2001, whereby the High Court dismissed 
the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed 
under Sections 417, 418 and 420 read with Section 120-B of 
the Indian Penal Code and the summoning order dated 
G 14.6.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 
Cha~~a~. 
· 
3. The basis of the filing of the application relates to 
issuance of 33 cheques by the appellants during the course of 
H its business aggregating to Rs.2,40,64,022.19 paise in 
• 
K.K. SINGHAL v. STEEL STRIPS LTD. 
241 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
consideration of the payment against steel billets and rolled 
A 
products supplied to them by the complainant/respondent. On 
presentation, all the cheques were dishonoured on different 
dates culminating in lodging of 26 complaints against the 
appellants for the commission of offence punishable under 
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon notice, the 
B 
appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure before the High Court for quashing the 
said complaints. 
4. The appellants on 22.7.1998 requested the complainant 
that he had material worth Rs. 1 crore for disposal in the shape 
C 
of forging of steel flanges which he would dispose of and would 
make the payment of the amount to the complainant and 
requested the complainant to find out a customer. At the request 
of the complainant, M/s. Uma Shanker Khandelwal and 
Company Limited, New Delhi agreed to purchase the material 
D 
from the appellants. The appellants agreed to pay the entire 
consideration to the respondent and in turn directed the said 
company to pay the consideration directly to the complainant 
against all t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.