LexNISHANT AGGARWAL versus KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 165 NISHANT AGGARWAL v. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA (Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2013) JULY 1, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881: A 8 ss.138 and 141 - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial c jurisdiction - In view of the law laid down in Bhaskaran's case, the Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the drawee resides and, as such, has filed the complaint, has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint- s.178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and s. 179 of ihe Code has 0 stretched it to still a wider horizon - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 177, 178 and 179 - Jurisdiction. The respondent/complainant, a resident of and carrying on business in District Bhiwani, Haryana, presented a cheque in his bank at Bhiwani which was E further presented to the drawer's Bank at Guwahati. The cheque was returned uncashed to the respondent's bank at Bhiwani with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". The respcndent sent a legal notice uls 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) to the F appellant (the drawer of the cheque) from Bhiwani, and, later filed a complaint u/ss 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act before the Judicial Magistrate at Bhiwani. The Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 5.3.2011, returned the complaint to the respondent for presentation before the G proper court having jurisdiction. However, the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, in the revision petition set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant. 165 H 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act or would it be only the court B exercising territorial jurisdiction over the drawee bank or the bank on which the cheque is drawn? Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court in K. Bhaskaran's case*, while C considering the territorial jurisdiction, has concluded that the amplitude of territorial jurisdiction pertaining to a complaint under the N.1. Act is very wide and expansive. This Court, keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly, ss. 177, D 178 and 179, laid down that s.138 has five components, namely, i)drawing of the cheque; ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank; iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque E amount; and v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice; and concluded that the complainant could choose any one of the five places to file a complaint. The Court clarified the place in the context of territorial jurisdiction as per the fifth F component, namely, "failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt." The place of failure to pay the amount has been clearly qualified by this Court as the place where the drawer resides or the place where the payee resides. The Court has held that G s.178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and s.179 of the Code has stretched it to still a wider horizon. The judgment in lshar Alloy does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran which provides jurisdiction at the place of residence of the payer and the H payee. [para 8-9 and 13] [172-C-G; 173-G-H; 174-A, B; 178- D-E] NISHANT AGGARWAL v. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA 167 *K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an and A Another 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 = (1999) 7 SCC 510 - relied on. Shri lshar Alloy Steels Ltd. vs. Jayaswa/s Neco Ltd., 2001 (2) SCR 36 = (2001) 3 SCC 609; Mrs. Preetha S. Babu vs. Voltas Limited and Another 2010 (3) Maharashtra Law B Journal 234; and Harman Electronics· Private Limited and Another vs. National Panasonic India Pn"vate Limited 2008 (17) SCR 487 = (2009) 1 SCC 720 - referred,to. 1.2 In view of the law laid down by this Court in C K.Bhaskaran, this Court is of the view that the Magistrate at Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the respondent, as he is undisputedly a resident of Bhiwani. [para 9] [174-A-B] Case Law Reference: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 relied on para 6 2001 (2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.