Delhi High Court
Devendra Gupta vs Shree Rathi Steels Ltd. on 25 January, 2011
Author: A.K. Pathak
Bench: A.K. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 2366/2007
% Judgment decided on: 25th January, 2011
DEVENDRA GUPTA .....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Assem Malhotra, Adv.
Versus
SHREE RATHI STEELS LTD. .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Subhash Chawla, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)
1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case no. 947/01 of 2007 titled "M/s Shree Rathi Steels Ltd. Vs. Anjali Institute of Management and Science & Ors.," pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi.
2. Respondent has filed a complaint before the CMM under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against M/s Anjali Institute of Management and Science (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Institute"). Petitioner has been impleaded as accused no.3 in the CRL. M.C. 2366/2007 Page 1 of 4 capacity of Founder-cum-Chairman of the Institute. Besides him, Aditya College of Law and one Sh. Raman Gupta have also been arrayed as accused nos. 2 and 4 respectively. It was alleged in the complaint that petitioner and accused no. 4 had been looking after the affairs of the said Institute. Petitioner and accused n o. 4, for and on behalf of the Institute, approached the respondent and placed order for supply of steel bars in the first week of December, 2006. The steel bars were required for the construction of Aditya College of Law. Petitioner and accused no. 4 through their Authorized Representative Sukhdeep Singh handed over a Demand Draft bearing no. 011806 dated 11th December, 2006 for Rs.4.50 lakhs drawn on UTI Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi together with two cheques bearing nos. 005147 dated 11th December, 2006 and 005148 dated 12th December, 2006 for Rs.1 lakh each to authorized distributor of the respondent namely Raj Kumar Daga in the evening of 11th December, 2006 at Delhi. These cheques were signed by petitioner as Founder-cum-Chairman of the Institute. Steel bars were delivered by respondent in the premises of Aditya College of Law at Agra. On presentation of aforesaid cheques same had been returned dishonored on 4th January, 2007 with the remarks "Payment Stopped". The cheque amount was not paid within the statutory period despite service of demand notice dated 18th January, 2007, thus, petitioner had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try CRL. M.C. 2366/2007 Page 2 of 4 the complaint under Section 138 of the Act since no cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The cheques had been issued from the account of the Institute maintained with the UTI Bank Ltd. at Agra. Cheques were presented for encashment and returned dishonored by the banker of the Institute at Agra. Entire cause of action had arisen at Agra. Merely because legal demand notice had been issued from Delhi, will not attract jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Reliance has been placed on Harman Electronics Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Panasonic India Private Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 704 and Ms. Hema Chaturvedi Vs. M/s Sunint Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (1) JCC 1 (NI). In my view, judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are in the context of different facts and are of no help to the petitioner's case. Respondent has not invoked jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only on account of issuance of legal demand notice from Delhi. As per the complaint, these cheques along with demand draft were handed over to the dealer of respondent at New Delhi when the order for supply of steel bars was placed. This shows that cheqeus in question were drawn at Delhi. In K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another (1999) 7 SCC 510, it was held that place of drawing of cheque would attract jurisdiction of that court. In this case, cheques had been drawn in Delhi, therefore, territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts gets attracted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the notice had been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, the demand notice issued on 18th January, 2007 was barred by limitation. In the letter dated 27th December, 2006 CRL. M.C. 2366/2007 Page 3 of 4 respondent has stated that the cheqeus in question had been returned dishonoured on presentation on 12th/13th December, 2006. Cheques were again deposited for encashment on 22nd December, 2006 and till 27th December, 2006 proceeds of these cheques had not been credited in the account of respondent. Once cheques had been returned dishonored, there was no justification for the respondent to re-deposit the cheques and the same had been done only in order to bring the case within the period of limitation. In my view, question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and can be resolved after the trial. In para 8 of the complaint respondent has categorically averred that unpaid cheques were received by it along with return memos only on 4th January, 2007. In the complaint, respondent has not made any reference with regard to earlier presentation of the cheques. Be that as it may, question of limitation can be resolved only after the trial and the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage on this score.
5. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 25, 2011 ga CRL. M.C. 2366/2007 Page 4 of 4