M/S Ligen Technologies vs M/S Iris Computers Limited on 29 October, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ligen Technologies vs M/S Iris Computers Limited on 29 October, 2009

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 29'*'aay of October, 2009   

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HUz,'U'i?AB1 '_ RAMESH  I

Criminal Petition 4183a'/__

Between:

1

(By Sri sNR'Law= Cmm%;b¢fs»,._  = '

Ana':

M/s Ligen Technologies
S C 0 ~« I84, IE Floor "

Sector 37-C, Chandigarlt 

By its Proprietor

Mr Aadhish Kernel Ji_nda§lg

Proprietor 3 ; to

M13 Ligen:TeCE.no}e-gies V  

S C O »- I84, IE-fFloor V'

Sector .3l7.:C,VV'Ch'and1Egarh   "

M/5 Iris Cotnputers Lifnited V

 #  Pfesétigﬁs-.C6ﬁter Point ' " """ " 'V
7Cunn1'n.gham Road, Bangalore 52

By its.'Aece;:r:t.lE£'xecu:[ivc
Sri Bhar:1man'an'd--a_ Re.dd},"

  
 Bangalore.

VV"(By Sri R-:1_ngarart:u 35tssts., Adv.)

Petitioners

Respondent

AA 'i'i}.i_.$ Crltninal Petition is ﬁled under S482 of the Cr.PC praying to set
the order dated 17.3.2009 in PCR 4233/09 before the XV Addl. CMM,



This Criininal Petition coming on for Admission this day, [il..'c'.>COLlE't
made the foilowing:  7

ORDER

Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated'li7.'3;'L5tj09iipassed byu it the XV CMM in CC 4233/2009.

Respondent ﬁled a private ccrnplaint against _the_ pet'i't'ione:r for"

dishonour of the cheque before the Bangalore. Sworn statement has been recorded aiitif'learned;Magisvtmtehas issued process. Questioning the jurisdiction of thet'--levarnediMagistrateaiiotitioner is before this Court.

According to the petitioner's"*counsel, the transactions have taken place at Chandigarh _ and the' court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction and that the Cghequer security and there is no legally enforceable debt and accordingiijg 'ior'.qoashing of the order.

Accoidving to the respondent's counsel, complainant has got a Branch it at TB-angpalore and when the cheque was presented for ericashrnent at Bangalore, .j.tiiWas dishonouted. Despite issuance of legal notice, payment was not made 3?' and the Court at Bangalore has got jurisdiction and referred to the decision of the Apex Court. in K Bhaskarczn Vs Scmkaran Vaidhyan Balm: cf:

1999 SC 3762 to contend that per S.i38 of the offence is said to be complete only after seriesoi' £>at:is"'h-i%.}¢;p "

regarding drawing of cheque, presentation of the cheqiie to*the=ba'i;klarid_ret:i;n of the cheque unpaid to the drawee, drawee gives notice"ini,yvriting_V§to tiiel» drawer of the cheque demanding paymelntiﬁ failure draxlifer to make payment. and, observed that it sh? ?'t\»V,,&i\§ Sldould have been perpetrated at the same iocal'itA.yV. to S.i38 of the Negotiable lnstruineritslﬁtcth andlaisog Cr.PC, it is held that if five different aets weie done inl'fi.i{'eAd'ifferent_localities, any one of the courts exercising jtirisdiction'--'i.n.-«one.of ~th"e'-five local areas can become the place of trial for t.he offence under. Sfl of Act. Complainant can chose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the locai areas and raising g jurisdiction point isari idle exercise.

'Percontra.resp'ondent's eounsei referring to the decision in the case of

-- M/s flarinan illi'ila-lc'j_t.rc.$}zics (P) Ltd & Anr Vs M/S National Panasonic India ' Ltfd ~ 20tl9.AlIR SCW 410 contended that issuance of notice would not itself if fyiveiraisep to cause of action. Stating that giving of notice havg no precedenﬂstl. 'Qt' Us rendered. Referring to various judgments. the Apex Court has held iha't»,Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. Even in para 22 of the.~t;e.id'jtldgtfflcfii, referring to 8.177 of the Code, it is observed, it is the place xi»-here:tii'1eioffeiice_ C ' was committed. In essence it is the causefioff ac'tio,_n7,for.;«init'iation"of the proceedings against the accused. While in civil normalijz, the exp.res--Sion.u 'cause of action' is used, in criminal caseszas stated in.,S.'i77a"ofl"the Code, C reference is to the local jur.isdicti;on where-the, offense is conimitted; Further, it is held that presumption raised in support roff';'servic.e.i:of notice would depend on the facts and circumstaiices of each'ca::e,. So_tnterpreting this aspect, the Apex Court in the for1ner..,derfiisi_onathat the tr_a1is'acti0nWalso has taken place at different places other th' jurisdiction to try theVvca"se';w.. _V " = In the instant case, necessari_ly'c'lieque was presented at Bangalore, for dishonourof cheque n_oticeTwas'-issued and there was refusal and also there is no--a»;pay':?ttent;,_'--.,1'n the circurnsuuices, when the dishonour of cheque and refusal , got _iurisd'iction to try the case.

of: p_pa;,Ime:i.t'h:»1s.i .ta'l;en"--place at Bangalore, necessarily, Bangalore Court has WM V the one iVi"W::,¢jia1an;«;d to the clone, held that it has ' Accordingly, petition is dismissed with :1 direction to the 'learned Magistrate to go on with the matter in accordance with law. An. I

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court