Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Punjab National Bank on 17 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. 509/2018
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
J2/15A, B.K. Datta Market,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027
2. M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR)
Unit IIPR, Kanpur208024
Through its Director/person concerned/
responsible officer etc.
3. Mr. Deepak
S/o Not known.
R/o Not known.
4. State
Chief Public Prosecutor,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 509/18
1 of 10
07.01.2017
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 26.10.2018
Date of Arguments : 13.12.2018
Date of Decision : 17.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide revision petition against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Ld. MM in CC No. 6620/18. 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. 509/18 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. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), Unit IIPR, Kanpur208024 is the customer of the complainant bank having account no. 10298336616 with the CR No. 509/18 3 of 10 07.01.2017 State Bank of India, Kalyanpur, Kanpur. On 31.05.2012 the respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank presented a Truncated image of cheque bearing No. 381990 dated 28.05.2012 for Rs. 6,70,000/ favouring respondent no. 3 Deepak on complainant bank for clearing which was purportedly issued by M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), Kanpur. The said cheque was honoured by the complainant bank from its Delhi office in normal course of business and Rs. 6,70,000/ was credited to account of respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank by debiting the cheque amount from the account of M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Kanpur and the amount of Rs. 6,70,000/ was credited by respondent no. 1 in account of respondent no. 3 under the state of conspiracy as such respondent no. 3 was not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 6,70,000/. Later on, M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Kanpur informed the State Bank of India, Kalyanpur, Kanpur that no such cheque was issued by them as such the original and genuine cheque bearing no. 381990 for Rs. 9566/ in favour of M/s. Time Advertising, Kanpur was issued on 25.02.2012 at the time of presented with State Bank of India, Kalyanpur, Kanpur. The complaint was made with SBI,Kalyanpur, Kanpur on 12.06.2012. The respondent no. 3 Deepak is the payee of the said cheque, who was maintaining the account no. 4550000100027110 with the customer of respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank at PNB, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi Branch and presented CR No. 509/18 4 of 10 07.01.2017 the cheque with the customer of respondent no. 1 at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. As per CTS clearing norms, original cheques are retained by the presenting bank and not sent to paying bank for 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 01.09.2017 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. 3 Deepak is having account no. 4550000100027110 and the customer of State Bank of India M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), Kanpur is having account No. 10298336616 with State Bank of India, Kalyanpur, Kanpur. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 presented the cheque at PNB, Rajouri CR No. 509/18 5 of 10 07.01.2017 Garden and the respondent no. 3 Deepak is having his account with Punjab National Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
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 CR No. 509/18 6 of 10 07.01.2017 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 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 CR No. 509/18 7 of 10 07.01.2017 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 & 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. 3 Deepak has presented the cheque in PNB, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and the cheque amount was credited in the account of respondent no. 3.
As the cheque was presented in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and the consumer of State Bank of India i.e. M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Kanpur is having account with SBI, Kalyanpur, Kanpur and amount was debited from the account of SBI, Kalyanpur, Kanpur and credited in the account of respondent no. 3 in Punjab National Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. I am of the view the consequences has CR No. 509/18 8 of 10 07.01.2017 ensued in the jurisdiction of SBI, Kalyanpur, Kanpur 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 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, Rajouri Garden and amount was withdrawn from account of M/s. Indian Council of Agriculture Research having account with State Bank of India, Kalyanpur, Kanpur. 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 CR No. 509/18 9 of 10 07.01.2017 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 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 17.12.2018. Spl. Judge, CBI02,
New Delhi District, PHC.
Digitally
signed by
CR No. 509/18
NARESH
NARESH KUMAR 10 of 10
07.01.2017KUMAR
MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2018.12.17
16:51:22
+0530