Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1598 (AP)

Q. S. Medicare, Lucknow (UP) v. State

2006-12-19

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2006
ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 2782 of 2004 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Add!. Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-complaint. 3. The complaint against the petitioner is that he issued six cheques to the 2nd respondent against the supply of medicines through its C & F Agent at Lucknow and when they were presented for encashment in the bank at Lucknow, the cheques were dishonoured on various dates on the ground of "stop payment' instructions given by the petitioner. The complainant stated that the cheques were given by the petitioner towards the value of the stocks received from the complainant. A complaint was filed before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 2002. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the chain of incidences i.e. transaction between the parties, supply of goods, raising of invoices, drawing of cheques, presenting of cheques, returning of cheques unpaid, address of the respondents are all at Lucknow, the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction and it is only the Court at Lucknow which has jurisdiction to try the case. Learned Counsel also contended that C and F gent and the clearing bank are situate at Lucknow, perhaps to give evidence, they have to come all the way from Lucknow to Hyderabad, the complaint ought to have filed at the Court in Lucknow. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the decisions in Jai Parkash v. Dinesh Dayal and K. Bhaskaran Sankaran Vaidhayan Balaff. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the complainant is a registered company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at 18/1 & 3, Azamabad, Hyderabad, and the company not 1. 1991 Crl.LJ 418. 2. 2000 (1) AL T (Cri.) 42 (SC) = 2000 (2) AnW.R. 43 (DCC) = AIR 1999 SC 3762 . only manufactures medicines but also markets through out India through its C & F agents and certain stocks were supplied to the petitioner at Lucknow through thei Lucknow based C & F agent. 1991 Crl.LJ 418. 2. 2000 (1) AL T (Cri.) 42 (SC) = 2000 (2) AnW.R. 43 (DCC) = AIR 1999 SC 3762 . only manufactures medicines but also markets through out India through its C & F agents and certain stocks were supplied to the petitioner at Lucknow through thei Lucknow based C & F agent. Learned Counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent has a registered office at Hyderabad and the petitioner is also situate at Hyderabad, notice in writing as to the dishonored of the cheques was issued at Hyderabad, as part of cause of action arose in Hyderabad, the Court at Hyderabad is competent and has jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this contention learned Counsel relied on the decision in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra). 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties, the question that falls for consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is, whether the Court at Hyderabad has jurisdiction to try the case. 7. At the out set, it is to be observed that this question is no longer res-integra. In K. Bhaskaran's case (supra), the Apex Court has summarized five acts which are treated to be the components of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, they are: (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. In other words, the complainant can choose anyone of those Courts having jurisdiction, within the territorial limits of which anyone of those five acts were done. It was further observed that it was also not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. 8. In the instant case the complainant is having its registered office at Azamabad, Hyderabad, notice of dishonoure of cheques was issued from Hyderabad and it is stated that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 8. In the instant case the complainant is having its registered office at Azamabad, Hyderabad, notice of dishonoure of cheques was issued from Hyderabad and it is stated that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. So, two of the five acts are which are components of the offence under Section 138 of the Act are satisfied and the complainant can choose anyone of those Courts having jurisdiction, within the territorial limits of which anyone of those two acts was done. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Jai Parkash's case (supra), has no application to the facts of the case. The case it relates to a written agreement between the parties therein and there was no specific mention about the place where that agreement was entered and under those circumstances it was observed that the complaint made against the petitioner at New Delhi was without jurisdiction when the petitioner was carrying on business in U.P. But, such is not the case, in the case on hand. 9. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the Court at Hyderabad has jurisdiction to try the case and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in CC No. 2782 of 2004 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The criminal petition is, therefore, dismissed.