Delhi District Court
Central Bank Of India vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 1 February, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - cum - SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI03, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR No. 54/2018
CIS No. 334/2018
Central Bank of India,
A body corporate constituted under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition &
Transfer) of Undertaking Act 1970,
having its Head/Central Office at
Chandermukhi, Nariman Point,
Mumbai400021 and branch office
amongst others at Nonbusiness office
Service Support Branch, CCC,
Chuna Mandi, New Delhi,
through its authorized signatory. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State (GNCT of Delhi)
2. Syndicate Bank through its
Chairman & Managing Director,
Central Office/ Head Office,
Post Box No. 1, Manipal576104
District Udupi, Karnataka.
3. Chief Manager, Service Branch,
Syndicate Bank, Jeewan
Prakash Building, 25, K.G.
Marg, New Delhi110001
4. Manager, Syndicate Bank
having its branch at Madhuban,
Bapu Bazar, Udaipur, Rajasthan
313001.
CR No. 54/2018 : Page 1 of 9
Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
5. Shri Sunil R. Soni s/o Shri
Ramphal Soni, account holder
with Branch Office Syndicate
Bank, Mansarover Branch,
Modhak Priya, Plot No. 16 & 17,
PartII, Shipra Park,
Mansarover, Jaipur302020
And also at : 102, UDBECO Home,
Mansarover, Jaipur302020
6. Syndicate Bank, Mansarover
Branch, Modhak Priya, Plot No. 16
& 17, PartII, Shipra Park,
Mansarover, Jaipur302020
7. S.I. Surtanand,
Police Station Parliament Street
New Delhi ..... Respondents
Date of Institution of Revision : 05.09.2018
Arguments heard : 21.01.2019
Order pronounced : 01.02.2019
ORDER
1. This revision petition u/s. 397 Cr.PC is filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate dated 06.08.2018 in a criminal complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner for the offences u/s. 417, 418, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 120B/34 of IPC, registered vide CC No. 6960/18, titled Central Bank of India vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors., vide which complaint of the petitioner along with an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to file it before the court having jurisdiction over CR No. 54/2018 : Page 2 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
the matter.
2. I have heard Mr. S. A. Khan, counsel for petitioner/revisionist and Ms. Sweta Verma, Addl. PP for the respondent no.1/State & respondent no. 7. Notice to other respondents was not issued as it was not necessary in the facts and circumstances. I have perused Trial Court Record.
3. Petitioner bank is a nationalized bank having its head/Central Office at Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021 and one of its Branch at Nonbusiness office at Service Support Branch, CCC, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj.
4. M/s. Pheroze Framroze Co. Pvt. Ltd. having account no. 3193103253 at Corporate Finance Branch MMO Building, Mumbai400023 had issued a cheque bearing no. 078942 for Rs.93,225/ dated 12.01.2015 in favour of Union Bank, which was forged by the accused no. 6 by copying/cloning the said cheque in his own name and filled the amount of Rs.7,36,320/ in the said cheque dated 02.01.2015. The forged cheque was presented for encashment with the revisionist/petitioner, in collusion of respondents no. 2 to 6 and was cleared from the account of M/s. Fheroze Framroze Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 13.01.2015 on Truncated Image basis.
5. The fraud was detected when the original cheque bearing No. 078942 dated 12.01.2015 for Rs.93,225/ was presented for encashment by the Union Bank of India to the revisionist, which was dishonoured for the reason that the cheque bearing the same number had already been honoured by the revisionist CR No. 54/2018 : Page 3 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
Service Support Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi, on the basis of Truncated Image.
6. The Trial Court vide impuged order dated 06.08.2018 returned the complaint along with the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC of the petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Relevant paras of the impugned order are :
For offence punishable as cheating, Cr.P.C. has provided the place of inquiry and trial and it can only be where the deception was practised and property was handed over. From the complaint, it is apparent that the deposit and withdrawal had taken place from the accounts of banks which are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The accounts debited and credited are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, for forgery, it has to be at the place where the same was committed, which is not clear from the complaint that it was done in the jurisdiction of this Court.
Ld. Counsel has made reference to the RBIs circular dated 24.02.2012 empowering the complainant bank to register the complaint even assuming that as a CCPC branch, it may not be empowered. However, this Court is of the view that the circular cannot over rule the law stipulated by Cr.P.C. and the complainant bank has to file the complaint before the police station having jurisdiction. Jurisdiction upon this Court cannot be conferred by the RBI Circular.
Hence, this Court is satisfied that this Court does not have the jurisdiction over the matter. Placing reliance upon Ramesh Awasthi vs. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 666/2017, Delhi High Court, this court is not inclined to order zero FIR.
7. The cheque in question in the name of respondent no. 5 was presented in respondent no. 6 bank, where respondent no. 5 CR No. 54/2018 : Page 4 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
had the account. Respondent no. 3 bank is the clearing bank of respondent no. 6, which had sent the image of the cheque to the petitioner bank for clearance. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per C.T.S. clearing norms, original cheques were retained by the presenting bank and only image of the said cheques was sent to the petitioner bank for payment. Alleged manipulation of those cheques by alteration, tampering or forgery was not apparent on the image of the cheques and therefore, the cheques in question were passed by the petitioner bank through C.T.S in normal course of banking business. The fraud being played came to notice of petitioner bank subsequently.
8. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the Trial Court had committed error by holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction and the reasoning is against the settled principles of law through various judicial pronouncements.
9. In Ramesh Awasthi (supra) the issue before Delhi High Court was - ''Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over an area has the power to direct the Area SHO to register zero FIR about offence committed outside the jurisdiction and then transfer the same to the concerned police station having jurisdiction?'' It was in this context that the court held that even if the offence is committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a police station, the Officer Incharge should register the FIR and investigate, but a Magistrate u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC cannot direct an Officer Incharge of a police station to register FIR CR No. 54/2018 : Page 5 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
10. Jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials is governed by Chapter XIII of Cr.PC and according to section 177 Cr.PC, an offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the present context section 179 Cr.PC is relevant, which reads as under ''179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.'' (emphasis supplied)
11. In Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction of Indian Courts when complainant was against the foreigners stationed in different foreign countries but their acts/ommisions were connected with transactions/cause of action arising in India. Relevant paras of the judgment are :
28. ............... The place where the agreement was executed, as well as, the places where different constituents of the agreement were carried out, are material factors to determine the relevant court(s) which would/could have jurisdiction in the matter. The place where the consequence of the criminal action (alleged in the complaint) ensues, may also be relevant for the said purpose. And finally, place(s) of receipt and dispatch of communications exchanged by the rival parties, revealing deception as an ingredient of cheating alleged by the CR No. 54/2018 : Page 6 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
complainant, can also be relevant to identify the court(s) having jurisdiction in the matter. The aforesaid relevance becomes apparent from Sections 179, 181 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which we shall presently examine.
(emphasis supplied) ............
...........
...........
35. Besides the aforesaid, under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even the place(s) wherein the consequence (of the criminal act) "ensues", would be relevant to determine the court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, even the courts within whose local jurisdiction, the repercussion/effect of the criminal act occurs, would have jurisdiction in the matter.
..............
.............
.............
42. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests jurisdiction for inquiry and trial in a Court, within whose jurisdiction anything has been done with reference to an alleged crime, and also, where the consequence of the criminal action ensues. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves no room for any doubt, that culpability is relatable even to the place at which consideration is required to be returned or accounted for. Finally, Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates that for offences of which cheating is a component, if the alleged act of deception is shown to have been committed, through communications/letters/ messages, the court within whose jurisdiction the said communications/letters/messages were sent (or were received), would be competent to inquire into and try the same. Thus viewed, it is not justified for the appellants to contend, that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused, specially in respect of the five appellants herein, are not relatable to territorial jurisdiction in India, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. Therefore, in view of the sec. 179 Cr.PC & Lee Kun Hee (supra) not only a court, within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed, will have the jurisdiction to try that case, but the CR No. 54/2018 : Page 7 of 9 Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
court in whose jurisdiction consequence of a criminal act is ensued, will also have the jurisdiction.
13. Coming to the facts in the petition, manipulated and forged cheque in the name of respondent no. 5 was presented in respondent no. 6 bank at Mumbai, outside the jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street, but its consequence was ensued at Service Support Branch of the petitioner bank at Parliament Street, New Delhi, which falls within the area of jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street. The bad cheque was cleared for payment by Service Support Branch of the petitioner bank at Parliament Street, New Delhi on the basis of its image as per rules of banking business, without which the offence of cheating & use of a forged document would not be complete. Ramesh Awasthi (supra) is not relevant to the facts of these cases. Thus, the Trial Court having the jurisdiction of the area falling in Police Station Parliament Street has the territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
14. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error by returning the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC and the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC. The revision petition is allowd and impugned order dated 06.08.2018 is set aside. Trial Court is directed to decide the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC and the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC, on merits.
15. Petitioner/revisionist is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.02.2019.
16. Trial Court Record be returned to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order.
CR No. 54/2018 : Page 8 of 9Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
17. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
on 01.02.2019 (Santosh Snehi Mann)
Addl. Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge
(PC Act), CBI03, New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 54/2018 : Page 9 of 9
Central Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.