Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1389 (RAJ)

Naveen Dhar v. R. S. W. M. Ltd. (LNJ

2012-05-29

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - All the above criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed to quash order dated 6.1.2011 passed upon complaint filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 138, read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and with the prayer that consequential proceedings arising out the same may be quashed and complaint may be returned. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner company is established at Delhi and dealing with business of Denim Fabric and Textile products having its office at 9/29-A, Main Road, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar,, Delhi (previously at 7476 1st Floor, Dharampura, Gurdhwara Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi). The respondent company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Bhilwara Towers, A/12, Sector 1, Noida-201301. Said respondent company is involved in the business of manufacturing fabric and its manufacturing until is situated in Rajasthan. As per petitioner, all the sales and collection of payment in respect of the sales/transactions are carried out from its registered office at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. No businessman or distributor including the petitioner has anything to do with the manufacturing unit and they are directly connected with the office at Noida (U.P.) which is the epicentres of all sales and business of the respondent company. 3. Contention of the petitioner in the petition is that since January 2008 the petitioner used to purchase Denim Fabric as per the business terms and conditions regularly and making payment without. any fail. The petitioner as well as respondent are maintaining running-account in respect of the fabric purchased, delivered and payment received or made. All the purchase orders were placed at its Noida office and in furtherance thereof all the cheques/security cheques or D.D. were deposited at its Noida office. The petitioner used to receive goods transported at Delhi against handing overability which was issued by the respondent in the name of itself. 4. As per facts of the case, the petitioner never approached nor went to its Banswara unit for the purpose of said transaction. The petitioner purchased Denim Fabric from the respondent as per the business practice and understanding arrived at by and between the parties; and, in lieu. thereof, handed over a post dated security cheque of Rs. 3,55,173/- bearing No. 087831 dated 30.12.2009 drawn on the Bank of India, Y.W.A. Hostel Building, Saket, New Delhi as security. 5. The petitioner purchased Denim Fabric from the respondent as per the business practice and understanding arrived at by and between the parties; and, in lieu. thereof, handed over a post dated security cheque of Rs. 3,55,173/- bearing No. 087831 dated 30.12.2009 drawn on the Bank of India, Y.W.A. Hostel Building, Saket, New Delhi as security. 5. As per practice developed and agreed in between the parties, after 45 days of handing over the security cheque, the petitioner used to send the payment by either cash or though D.D. and received back the security cheque. It was also agreed that before presenting the cheque for encashment, the respondent would intimate the petitioner so that the petitioner can arrange the sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque. 6. Contention of the petitioner is that due to show-down in the textile the petitioner could be able to arrange fund on the due time to collect the security cheque back and sought some time from the collection department of the respondent at Noida but the respondent instead of granting ease facility for making payment, presented all the cheques at Banswara (Rajasthan). Further, it was wanted by the respondent that they deliberately presented the cheques at Banswara so that they can use Court and judicial process and police against the petitioner as per the convenience of the respondent. The respondent has firm belief that they may run parallel Government at Banswara and all systems are being run by them on their instruction which is arbitrary, erroneous and mala fide and cannot be accepted by law. 7. Upon the above facts, when complaint was filed against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court issued summons on 4.1.2011 which is impugned in this miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482, CrPC. 7. Upon the above facts, when complaint was filed against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court issued summons on 4.1.2011 which is impugned in this miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482, CrPC. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated against him solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that as per the petitioner, on the date of filing complaint, neither any cause of action arose at Banswara (Rajasthan) nor the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara had territorial jurisdiction; but, ignoring all these facts, the learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and it may be declared that the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara has no territorial jurisdiction to try criminal complaint against the petitioner because the said Court is not having any jurisdiction to hear the said complaint. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards certain judgments reported in (2009) 1 SCC 720 and (1999) 7 SCC 150; and, submits that the proceedings initiated at Banswara by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 may be quashed because the said Court, has no territorial jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that admittedly the cheque in question was issued in the name of R.S.WM. Ltd. which is situated at L.N.J. Nagar, Mordi, Police Station Sadar, Banswara and the said cheque was filed with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. However, due to stoppage of payment the said bank on 7.7.2010 returned the cheque, therefore, it cannot be said that Banswara Court has no territorial jurisdiction and as such this miscellaneous petition may be dismissed. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire facts narrated in this petition as well as documents annexed. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner being proprietor of M/s. Gemini International purchased Denim Fabric from the respondent company which is situated at Banswara and cheque was also issued in favour of the R.S.WM. Ltd. which is situated near Banswara. However, the bank dishonoured the cheque on the ground that payment is stopped by the author of the cheque. In my opinion, when the manufacturing unit of the respondent is at Banswara and cheque is issued in favour of the R.S.WM. Ltd. which is situated near Banswara. However, the bank dishonoured the cheque on the ground that payment is stopped by the author of the cheque. In my opinion, when the manufacturing unit of the respondent is at Banswara and cheque is issued in favour of the R.S.WM. Ltd. which is situated at Banswara, then, how it can be said that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara is lacking jurisdiction to hear the complaint at Banswara. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are based upon altogether different facts. 12. Here, in this case, upon the facts of the case it cannot be said that the A.C.J.M., Banswara is not having territorial jurisdiction, therefore, there is no strength in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Banswara Court has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. It is worthwhile to observed that in para (f) of the petition following assertion has been made by the petitioner : "That due to showdown in textile the petitioner could not able to arrange the fund on the time to collect the security cheque back and sought some time from the collection department of the respondent at Noida. But, the respondent instead of granting ease facility of making payment to the petitioner, presented all the cheques at Banswara, Rajasthan. Moreover, it was warned by the respondent that they deliberately presented the cheques at Banswara so that they can use Court and judicial process and police against the petitioner as per the convenience of the respondent. The respondent has firm belief that they make run parallel Government at Banswara and all systems are being run by them or their instruction. This kind of attitude is arbitrary, erroneous and mala fide and thus cannot be accepted by the law." 13. Upon perusal of the aforesaid para, it is very strange that the petitioner has used contemptuous language for voicing his grievance to say that the respondent, deliberately presented the cheque at Banswara so that they can use Court judicial process and police as per the convenience of the respondent as the respondent has firm belief that they make run parallel Government at Banswara and all sytems are being run by them on their instruction. Such type of language used by the accused-petitioner is highly objectionable. 14. Such type of language used by the accused-petitioner is highly objectionable. 14. Therefore, it is required to be observed that no person can use such language so as to obtain order in his favour. The matter is required to be decided by law as per provisions of the CrPC. It cannot be said that any error has been committed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magitrate, Banswara because the learned Magistrate is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act.In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******