Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Punjab National Bank on 18 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Revision No. 510/2018
In the matter of:
State Bank of India
Cheque Truncation System Branch,
(C.T.S.) (CCPC) at Ground Floor,
BBlock, 11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110001
....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank
Regional Collection Centre,
5, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001
Also at:
Punjab National Bank
Chandigarh Branch
2. Mr. Satpal Singh
S/o Not known.
R/o Not known.
3. State
Chief Public Prosecutor,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 510/18
1 of 10
07.01.2017
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 26.10.2018
Date of Arguments : 13.12.2018
Date of Decision : 18.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide revision petition against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Ld. MM in CC No. 7212/18. Vide which Ld. Trial Court has ordered to return the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C alongwith application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant against certified copies to be retained on record, to be filed before the Court having jurisdiction over the matter.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2018, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the grounds that the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court is perincurium. Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in haste and did not apply its judicious mind. The impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Ld. MM is nonspeaking and wrongly ordered to return the complaint alongwith application. It is mentioned that the ATR filed by police authority is nothing but an eye wash and the police just tried to hushup the matter and shifted the burden to others. Ld. Trial Court did not consider the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble CR No. 510/18 2 of 10 07.01.2017 Supreme Court of India and also not considered the judgments relied upon by the petitioner during arguments. Ld. MM did not consider the circular of R.B.I which empowered the complainant bank to register the complaint. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the basic factum that the complainant branch has played an head and brain role in the entire episode. Moreover, this fact stands uncontroverted and undisputed that as per direction and order of the CTSCCPC, New Delhi, the entire transaction has been taken place. The Acts of offence committed by the accused are not just confined within the boundaries of the Customer of the petitioner bank and also at the abovementioned office of the petitioner who received the images of the forged/ stolen instrument(s) and cleared the same in good faith. It is prayed that order dated 31.07.2018 be set aside and revision petition be allowed.
3. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 and Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length and perused the records of this court as well as Trial Court very carefully.
4. Perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that the complaint was filed before the Ld. MM with the averments that M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Limited is the customer of the complainant bank having account no. 32797226922 with the State Bank of India, SME Goregaon Branch, CR No. 510/18 3 of 10 07.01.2017 Mumbai. On 10.10.2017 the respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank presented a Truncated image of cheque bearing No. 207298 dated 07.10.2017 for Rs. 94,560/ favouring respondent no. 2 Satpal Singh on complainant bank for clearing which was purportedly issued by M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Ltd. The said cheque was honoured by the complainant bank from its Delhi office in normal course of business and Rs. 94,560/ was credited to account of respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank by debiting the cheque amount from the account of M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Ltd. and the amount of Rs. 94,560/ was credited by respondent no. 1 in account of respondent no. 2 under the state of conspiracy as such respondent no. 2 was not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 94,560/. Later on, M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Ltd., informed the State Bank of India, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai that no such cheque was issued by them as such the original and genuine cheque bearing no. 207298 is in possession of M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was made with SBI, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai on 12.06.2012. The respondent no. 2 Satpal Singh is the payee of the said cheque, who was maintaining the account no. 3610001700004303 with the customer of respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank at PNB, Chandigarh and presented the cheque with the customer of respondent no. 1 at Chandigarh. As per CTS clearing norms, original cheques are retained by the presenting bank and not sent to paying bank for CR No. 510/18 4 of 10 07.01.2017 payment. Accordingly, only image of the said cheque came to the complainant bank for payment through RBI. It is also mentioned that the alteration/ tampering or forgery is not apparent on the face of the images therefore, the cheque in question, as per banking rules, was passed by CCPC through CTS (Cheque Truncation System) of the complainant bank in normal course of business. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed complaint received by the complainant bank from its customer and copies of the image(s) of cheque presented to the complainant. It is also mentioned that the complainant bank being in charge of the matter with regard to the CTS (Cheques Truncation System) made a police complaint on 06.01.2018 to the DCP, Delhi Police, Parliament Street, New Delhi to lodge FIR against the accused persons but no FIR was registered.
6. In the present case, the respondent no. 2 Satpal Singh is having account no. 3610001700004303 and the customer of State Bank of India M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Limited is having account No. 32797226922 with State Bank of India, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 presented the cheque at PNB, Chandigarh and the respondent no. 2 Satpal Singh is having his account with Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh.
CR No. 510/185 of 10 07.01.2017
7. It is vehemently argued by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the truncated copy of the cheque was sent to the petitioner branch and petitioner had encashed the cheque and lateron this cheque was found to be forged. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been cheated and the petitioner bank has cleared the cheque on the basis of image and petitioner was not aware whether the cheque was forged or not. It is also argued that as the consequences of cheating has been ensued in the jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street so the trial court has jurisdiction to try the present complaint and Ld. MM has wrongly held that this court has not jurisdiction to try the complaint.
8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment titled as "Purushottamdas Dalmia Vs. State of West Bengal" 1961(2) Cri.L.J. 728 wherein, it is held that "the court having jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy, has also jurisdiction to try an offence constituted by the overt acts which are committed in pursuance of the conspiracy beyond its jurisdiction". Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Lee Kun Hee & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 510/18 6 of 10 07.01.2017 of U.P. & Ors." AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1007 wherein, it is held that "in the instant case the complainant had sent the goods from India. The bill of exchange was received in India. On its dishonour the complainant had made communication with accused from India. Thus, it cannot be said that actions attributed to accused had no connectivity to India. 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 communication/letters/messages, the Court within whose jurisdiction the said communications/letters/messages were sent (were received), would be competent to inquire into and try the same". Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "S.P.Sharma Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi CR No. 510/18 7 of 10 07.01.2017 & Ors." 1998(47) DRJ(DB) wherein, it is held that "if the complaint discloses commission of cogniable offence then the police has to register the FIR". Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Ramesh Awasthi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" Crl.M.C. 666/2017 wherein, it is held that "Magistrate is not empowered to direction registration of FIR and investigation to an officer incharge of a police station beyond its territorial jurisdiction".
9. In the present case, respondent no. 2 Satpal Singh has presented the cheque in PNB, Chandigarh and the cheque amount was credited in the account of respondent no. 2.
As the cheque was presented in Chandigarh and the consumer of State Bank of India i.e. M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Limited is having account with SBI, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai and amount was debited from the account of SBI, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai and credited in the account of respondent no. 2 in Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh. I am of the view the consequences has ensued in the jurisdiction of SBI, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai and not in the Parliament Street. Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that "this court has no jurisdiction and forgery was not committed within the jurisdiction of PS CR No. 510/18 8 of 10 07.01.2017 Parliament Street". Ld. Trial Court has rightly ordered to return the complaint along with application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant against certified copies to be retained on record to be filed before the Court having jurisdiction over the matter. Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that 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. Moreover, the police of PS Parliament Street cannot be burdened with investigation of these types of matters as original cheque is with Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh and amount was withdrawn from account of M/s. Iksula Services Pvt. Ltd. having account with State Bank of India, SME Goregaon Branch, Mumbai. There is circular dated 24.02.2012 of the Reserver Bank of India sent to the Chief Executive, Indian Bank's Association and vide this circular the reporting of frauds involving truncated instruments will have to be done by the collecting/ representing bank and not by the paying bank as per extant guidelines, since the information in respect of reporting frauds by the paying bank may continue. However, in cases of frauds, the presenting bank will be required to immediately handover the cheque to the drawee bank as and when so demanded to enable them to file the FIR and report the CR No. 510/18 9 of 10 07.01.2017 fraud to RBI. In view of the circular, Ld. MM has rightly held that this court has no jurisdiction. Moreover, Ld. Trial Court has not dismissed the complaint and only ordered to return the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C alongwith application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant against certified copies to be retained on record, to be filed before the Court having jurisdiction over the matter.
10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order 31.07.2018 passed by Ld. MM. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.
Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court (N.K. Malhotra)
on 18.12.2018. Spl. Judge, CBI02,
New Delhi District, PHC.
Digitally
signed by
NARESH
NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2018.12.18
CR No. 510/18 16:54:22
+0530
10 of 10
07.01.2017