Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 470 (MP)

Prashant Sharma v. Yogesh Agrawal

2015-04-23

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 20.11.2014 passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 393/14 whereby the order dated 25.9.2014 passed by the ACJM, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.10439/12 stood set aside and the revision was allowed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act with allegations that an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was taken by the petitioner/accused on credit and against repayment of the said amount, three different cheques, bearing No.(i) 103484, dated 10.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- of Axis Bank, Gwalior No.(ii) 103490, dated 10.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- of Axis Bank, Gwalior and thirdly No.(iii) 118617, dated 10.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.90,000/- of HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji New Delhi were issued. When these cheques were sent to the concerning banks for encashment, same were dishonoured on 23.6.2012 for want of sufficient funds in the account of holder of the cheques. Thereafter, legal notice was given in writing by the complainant for payment of the amount within seven days from the receipt of the notice, but no such payment was made by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the complaint was filed against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not challenge jurisdiction of the Court concerned in entertaining the complaint in respect of issuing of first two cheques of Axis Bank, Gwalior. The only dispute which arises is that since third cheque was issued to be drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi, therefore in the event of dishonour of the said cheque, the remedy of filing complaint lies only at New Delhi and not at Gwalior. As per the learned counsel, the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction in entertaining such complaint so far as third cheque is concerned and the order passed in a revision being illegal is liable to be quashed in conformation with the order passed by the trial Magistrate. As per the learned counsel, the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction in entertaining such complaint so far as third cheque is concerned and the order passed in a revision being illegal is liable to be quashed in conformation with the order passed by the trial Magistrate. In support of the submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, [( AIR 2014 SC 3519 )]. 4. On the contrary, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that all the cheques were issued in one transaction for repayment of the loan amount. Both the parties are residing at Gwalior. He also relied upon the ratio of guidelines issued in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), and contended that the same have been followed in due manner by the revisional Court before reaching on conclusion and therefore no inference is warranted in this revision. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, entire matter has been examined. 6. Admittedly it was directed by the trial Court that no complaint will lie at Gwalior in view of the fact that the third cheque was dishonoured from HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji New Delhi. Against that order, the revision was preferred by the complainant. Same was allowed and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial against the accused in respect of all the three dishonourd cheques. 7. A careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court shows that by observing very minutely the ratio of principles laid down in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), the findings have been recorded by the revisional Court. The order is therefore well justified. 8. In the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), it was held by the apex Court that :- “56. To sum up :- (i) xxxxx xxxxxx (ii) xxxxx xxxxxx (iii) xxxxx xxxxxx (iv) xxxxx xxxxxx (vii) The general rule stipulated under section 177 of CrPC applied to cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. In the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), it was held by the apex Court that :- “56. To sum up :- (i) xxxxx xxxxxx (ii) xxxxx xxxxxx (iii) xxxxx xxxxxx (iv) xxxxx xxxxxx (vii) The general rule stipulated under section 177 of CrPC applied to cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of section 220(1) read with section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of section 182(1) read with sections 184 and 220 thereof.” 9. The aforesaid law clearly indicates that when offence of dishonoured cheque under section 138 of NI Act is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of section 220(1) read with section 182 of CrPC or is covered by the provision of section 182(1) read with section184 and 220 thereof then said offence can be tried jointly at one place by a Court having jurisdiction for another offences. 10. As per the facts of the case in hand, in one transaction, amount was borrowed to the petitioner and for re-payment of the amount, three different cheques were issued by the petitioner in discharge of his legal liability, meaning thereby the moment when all the cheques were dishonoured, the offence will be deemed to have been committed jointly by the petitioner for all the three dishonoured cheques. The position would have been different if the cheques were issued in discharge of liability of different transactions and in that event accrual of cause of action would have arisen at the place where the offence of dishonour of the cheque takes place. The respondent, therefore has got a strong case in his favour. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the revisional Court does not call for any interference. The petition is devoid of merits. It is dismissed summarily.