Courts within whose jurisdiction cheque was presented and dishonoured also have jurisdiction to try

Ss. 177, 178 (d), 179, 397 and 482 - Territorial Jurisdiction of court to try offence U/s. 138 of N.I. Act 1881 –

Principles reiterated - Courts within whose jurisdiction cheque was presented and dishonoured also have jurisdiction to try to offend U/s. 138 N.I. Act Respondent-accused issued a cheque to the appellant complainant in Kolkata. Cheque was submitted for encashment in Delhi.- As cheque was dishonoured, notice was issued from Delhi and finally proceedings U/s. 138, N.I. Act, 1881 initiated before Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi. The High Court ruled that courts in Delhi did not have jurisdiction to try to complain about the appellant complainant and liberty was given to the appellant complainant to prosecute his case before courts in Kolkata.  Courts within whose jurisdiction cheque was presented for encashment would get jurisdiction to try case - Ingredients of offence U/s. 138 of NI Act are: (i) drawing of cheque; (ii) presentation of cheque to bank; (iii) returning of cheque unpaid by drawee bank; (iv) giving notice in writing to drawer of cheque demanding payment of cheque amount; and (v) failure of drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. It is not necessary that all acts should be done at same place, and they may arise at different places - Wherever these acts have been performed, courts of such area get jurisdiction to try complaint U/s. 138, NI Act.  Hence, High Court erred in concluding that courts in Delhi did not get jurisdiction. Therefore, proceedings before trial court restored. As respondent-accused raised further plea on facts that cheque was presented for encashment in Faridabad, Supreme Court reserved liberty to respondent-accused to raise that plea before trial court. Having taken into consideration the factual position noticed by the High Court in para 13 of the impugned judgment, Rama Mukherjee v. Escorts Ltd. Court is of the view, that the High Court erred in concluding that the Courts at Delhi, did not have the jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the appellant U/s. 138 of the NI Act. The impugned order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the High Court is accordingly liable to be set aside. The same is, therefore, hereby set aside.

Case Law:
Escorts Limited v. Rama Mukherjee;

Citation:
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 808