Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 473 (UTT)

Harbans Singh Jabbal v. Deep Chand Bansal

2013-07-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the applicants/petitioners seek to quash the summoning order dated 25.02.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun in complaint case no. 467 of 2008, captioned as Deep Chand vs. M/S Jabbar Auto Pvt. Ltd. & others. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved thereby, present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by them. The complaint was filed by the respondent Deep Chand Bansal. 2. Complainant/respondent sent a notice to the applicants, who were the residents of Pune (Maharashtra). It is an admitted fact that four cheques of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune were issued by the applicants and were dishonoured on 10.04.2007. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune gave an intimation to the complainant/respondent regarding dishonour of cheques. The cheques were returned with the remarks “fund insufficient”. Thus, the cheques could not be honoured for ‘insufficiency of funds’. 3. The principal contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the court at Derhadun has no jurisdiction to try the case. A ruling of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan (1999) was referred to by learned Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun in his order. Learned Judicial Magistrate, relying upon the said ruling, held that the court at Dehradun also has jurisdiction to try the case, as the notice was issued by the respondent from his Dehradun address. The said ruling of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited and another vs. National Panasonic India Private Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC (Criminal) 610. 4. In Harman Electronics Private Ltd. Case (supra), it was held that the Court ordinarily will have the jurisdiction only where the offence has been committed. While dealing with the problem, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said case, held that the Court where the cheque was dishonoured, and not the Court from where the notice was issued, has jurisdiction to try the case under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881. It was observed that the jurisdiction of Court to try a criminal case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not by common law principle that the debtor must seek the creditor. 5. It was observed that the jurisdiction of Court to try a criminal case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not by common law principle that the debtor must seek the creditor. 5. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that the Court at Pune (Maharashtra), and not at Dehradun, has jurisdiction to try the case. 6. The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., therefore succeeds. The same is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.208 is set aside. The complainant/respondent is, however, given liberty to file the complaint in the Court having jurisdiction at Pune (Maharashtra).