Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 732 (KAR)

H. C. Chawla v. Iris Computers Ltd. , Bangalore

2009-09-15

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2009
ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J.: The 2nd respondent in all these petitions is a co-accused along with the petitioner. Though notice is issued, since no relief is sought as against it, in my opinion, it is not a necessary party. Petitioner is permitted to delete the 2nd respondent. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings on the file of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in PCR 824/2009 (CC 12213 1 2009); PCR 8221 (CC 12210/2009); PCR 8220/2009 (CC 122091 2009); PCR 8222 (CC 12211/2009) and PCR 8223/2009 (CC 12212/2009). Respondent complainant filed a private complaint under S.200 Cr.PC interalia alleging that the petitioner who had made purchase of computers on behalf of the 1st accused company, was due of Rs.57,57,388/-. In this regard, petitioner herein on behalf of the 1st accused, had issued several cheques. On presentation of the said cheques, they were returned with a shara 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to make payment. However, no payments were made. In view of the same, private complaint was filed by the complainant. Learned Magistrate, considering the averments in the complaint, sworn statement and the material produced by the complainant, prima facie found a case to be tried for the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has issued summons. It is at this stage, matter has come up before this Court. The only contention of the petitioner is, the Magistrate at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to try the case as the transaction has taken place at Chandigarh and Delhi. The cheques were issued at Delhi. As such, the proceedings are vitiated. On the other hand, Counsel representing the complainant submitted that though the cheques were issued at Delhi, they were presented at Bangalore and the Bangalore Branch has issued an endorsement stating that the cheques were dishonoured by the banker of the accused as funds were insufficient. The legal notice is issued from Bangalore and the same was served on the accused. The complainant's office is at Bangalore. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the legal notice was not replied by the accused and since the legal notice is issued at Bangalore, cheques were presented at Bangalore. The complainant's office is at Bangalore, I do not find there is any error of jurisdiction. It is submitted that some matter are pending at Delhi. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the legal notice was not replied by the accused and since the legal notice is issued at Bangalore, cheques were presented at Bangalore. The complainant's office is at Bangalore, I do not find there is any error of jurisdiction. It is submitted that some matter are pending at Delhi. However, no such material is produced and that is not the ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, petitions fail. The same are dismissed. Petitions is dismissed.