Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 220 (JHR)

Gaurav Singhal v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body2010
JUDGMENT (1) IN this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him including the order of cognizance dated 18- 3-2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable INstruments Act in C/1-1155 of 2008 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. (2) THE complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that pursuant to the agreement of consultancy services the petitioner issued some cheques to discharge his liability and the same were returned by the banker of the complainant on account of insufficient fund. Accordingly, the complainant sent legal notice and filed complaint case. In the said complaint case ultimately cognizance was taken on 18-3-2009 against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court at Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to proceed for trial in the instant case. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant resides within the jurisdiction of Saraikella Kharsawan and the petitioner is resident of Kolkata, West Bengal. The cheque in question was issued from Kolkata and the same was deposited in the Bank of Baroda, Gamharia Branch within the district of Saraikella Kharsawan, where it was dishonoured. Hence the Court at Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction. (3) FROM perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the agreement between the complainant and the petitioner was entered into at Jamshedpur and was duly signed and executed at Civil Court, Jamshedpur. It is further stated in the complaint that as per the agreement the jurisdiction for any legal dispute arises between the parties was mutually agreed to be at Jamshedpur. (4) HAVING regard to the undisputed facts, stated in the complaint petition, I am of the view that in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another (1999) 7 SCC 510 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3762 ) and Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed (2008) 13 SCC 77 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1355 : 2009 (3) AIR Jhar R 402), a criminal case cannot be quashed on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the instant application, therefore, has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.