Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs . Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 16 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - cum - SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI03, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
1. CR No.: 68/2018 (CIS No. 411/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
2. CR No.: 69/2018 (CIS No. 412/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
3. CR No.: 70/2018 (CIS No. 413/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Andhra Bank & Ors.
4. CR No.: 71/2018 (CIS No. 414/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Vijaya Bank & Ors.
5. CR No.: 72/2018 (CIS No. 415/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
6. CR No.: 73/2018 (CIS No. 416/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
7. CR No.: 74/2018 (CIS No. 417/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Bank of India & Ors.
8. CR No.: 75/2018 (CIS No. 418/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.
9. CR No.: 76/2018 (CIS No. 419/2018)
State Bank of India vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
10. CR No.: 77/2018 (CIS No. 420/2018)
State Bank of India vs. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. & Ors.
11. CR No.: 56/2018 (CIS No. 399/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
12. CR No.: 57/2018 (CIS No. 400/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
13. CR No.: 58/2018 (CIS No. 401/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 16
14. CR No.: 59/2018 (CIS No. 402/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
15. CR No.: 60/2018 (CIS No. 403/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
16. CR No.: 61/2018 (CIS No. 404/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
17. CR No.: 62/2018 (CIS No. 405/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
18. CR No.: 63/2018 (CIS No. 406/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
19. CR No.: 64/2018 (CIS No. 407/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
20. CR No.: 65/2018 (CIS No. 408/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
21. CR No.: 66/2018 (CIS No. 409/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
22. CR No.: 67/2018 (CIS No. 410/2018)
State Bank of India vs. The State & Ors.
Date of Institution of : 04.10.2018
Revision Nos. 1 to 10
Date of Institution : 03.10.2018
Revision Nos. 11 to 22
Arguments heard : 15.01.2019
Order pronounced : 16.01.2019
ORDER
1. Vide this common order I shall dispose of 22 revision petitions filed u/s. 397 Cr.PC as a common issue of law is involved i.e. Page No. 2 of 16 ''Whether the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the matters alleged in the complaints u/s. 200 Cr.PC and the applications u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC filed in the Trial Court''.
2. Vide separate impugned orders all dated 11.05.2018 in revision petitions bearing CR No. 68/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8300/18; SBI vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.); CR No. 69/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8291/18; SBI vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.); CR No. 70/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8313/18; SBI vs. Andhra Bank & Anr.); CR No. 71/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8305/18; SBI vs. Vijaya Bank & Anr.); CR No. 72/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8302/18; SBI vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.); CR No. 73/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8307/18; SBI vs. Canara Bank & Anr.); CR No. 74/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8312/18; SBI vs. Bank of India & Anr.); CR No. 75/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8311/18; SBI vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.); CR No. 76/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8303/18; SBI vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.) & CR No. 77/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8294/18; SBI vs. ING Vysya Bank & Anr.), the Trial Court returned the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC of the petitioner filed u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 120B of IPC along with an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC on the ground that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction over the matter. For the same reason, vide a common impugned order dated 30.06.2018 in revision petitions bearing CR No. 56/2018 (arising out of CC No. 478/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 57/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8001/17; SBI vs. State Page No. 3 of 16 & Ors.); CR No. 58/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8003/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 59/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8246/18; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 60/2018 (arising out of CC No. 6704/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 61/2018 (arising out of CC No. 2187/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 62/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8002/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 63/2018 (arising out of CC No. 483/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 64/2018 (arising out of CC No. 2191/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 65/2018 (arising out of CC No. 481/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); CR No. 66/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8014/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.); & CR No. 67/2018 (arising out of CC No. 8010/17; SBI vs. State & Ors.), application of the petitioner u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC r/w. Section 406/420/467/468/ 471/120B/34 IPC were returned to be filed before the competent court having jurisdiction over the matter.
3. I have heard Mr. Karn Kumar, counsel for petitioner/revisionist in CR Nos. 56/2018 to CR No. 67/2018, Ms. Aarti Bansal, counsel for the petitioner in CR Nos. 68/2018 to 77/2018 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. PP for the respondent/State. Notice to other respondents was not issued as it was not necessary in the facts and circumstances. I have perused the documents filed on record.
4. The common facts alleged in the revision petitions are that the petitioner bank is a statutory body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Page No. 4 of 16 Mumbai400024 and one of its Local Head Office at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001. Petitioner has its branches throughout India including a branch, Cheque Truncation System branch (C.T.S.) (CCPC) at Ground Floor, BBlock, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001. Banking activities of the petitioner bank are regulated by the Reserver Bank of India and all instructions, notifications, orders of Reserve Bank of India are binding on the banks, which have the force of law. Allegedly various cheques of the account holders in different branches of the petitioner bank, which are the subject matter in the criminal complaints u/s. 200 Cr.PC and applications filed by the petitioner u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC in the Trial Court, were manipulated and presented in different banks at different places.
5. It is claimed by 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. Details of the presenting banks and the alleged manipulation of the cheques, subject matter in the revision petitions are as under :
Page No. 5 of 16S. Case Presenting Detail of Cheque(s) Category N. particulars Bank/Collecting cheque(s) cleared for Bank & Place of & amount payment by presentation 1 CR No. Punjab National Cheque No. State Bank of All the cheques 68/2018 Bank, 484772 India, Cheque were forged (CIS No. Connaught dated truncated with signature.
411/2018)S Circus, ND 10.12.2013 System Branch tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC), 4,50,000/ Ground Floor, B of India vs. Block, 11, Punjab Punjab National Ch. No. Sansad Marg, National Bank, Patel 784770 New Delhi Bank & Ors. Nagar, ND dated 110001 10.12.2013 for Rs.
4,70,000/
Punjab National Ch. No.
Bank, Krishna 784690
Nagar, Delhi dated
18.12.2013
for Rs.
7,56,200/
A Total sum
of Rs.
16,76,200/
2 CR No. Punjab National Cheque State Bank of Both the
69/2018 Bank, Mall Road, No.785791 India, Cheque cheques were
(CIS No. ND dated truncated forged with
412/2018)S 03.01.2014 System Branch signature.
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
6,72,600/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Punjab Punjab National Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
National Bank, Pitam 785682 New Delhi
Bank & Ors. Pura, Delhi dated 110001
24.01.2014
for Rs.
7,35,400/
A Total sum
of Rs.
14,08,000/
Page No. 6 of 16
3 CR No. Andhra Bank Cheque State Bank of The cheque was
70/2018 Paschim Vihar, No.485650 India, Cheque forged with
(CIS No. Delhi dated truncated signature.
413/2018)S 25.08.2017 System Branch
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
3,00,000/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Andhra Sansad Marg,
Bank & Ors. New Delhi
110001
4 CR No. Vijaya Bank Cheque State Bank of The cheque was
71/2018 Jasola, Delhi No.785830 India, Cheque forged with
(CIS No. dated truncated signature.
414/2018)S 10.02.2014 System Branch
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
6,83,600/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Vijaya Bank Sansad Marg,
& Ors. New Delhi
110001
5 CR No. Punjab National Cheque No. State Bank of All the cheques
72/2018 Bank, Mall Road, 784665 India, Cheque were forged
(CIS No. ND dated truncated with signature
415/2018)S 02.12.2013 System Branch
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
4,80,000/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Punjab Punjab National Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
National Bank, 784771 New Delhi
Bank & Ors. Connaught dated 110001
Circus, ND 16.12.2013
for Rs.
7,38,500/
Punjab National Ch. No.
Bank, Paharganj, 784689
Delhi dated
18.12.2013
for Rs.
8,42,600/
Punjab National Ch. No.
Bank, Kishan 784843
Ganj, Delhi dated
02.01.2014
Page No. 7 of 16
for Rs.
6,32,800/
Punjab National Ch. No.
Bank, Kashmeri 784937
Gate, Delhi dated
10.01.2014
for Rs.
7,65,200/
A Total Sum
of Rs.
34,59,100/
6 CR No. Canara Bank, Cheque State Bank of Both the
73/2018 Greater Kailash, No.785845 India, Cheque cheques were
(CIS No. ND dated truncated forged with
416/2018)S 04.02.2014 System Branch signature.
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
6,20,500/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Canara Do Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
Bank & Ors. 785838 New Delhi
dated 110001
05.02.2014
for Rs.
7,45,400/
A Total sum
of Rs.
13,65,900/
7 CR No. Bank of India, Cheque State Bank of Both the
74/2018 Vikas Marg, No.785693 India, Cheque cheques were
(CIS No. Delhi dated truncated forged with
417/2018)S 24.01.2014 System Branch signatures
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
7,64,800/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Bank of Bank of India, Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
India & Kamla Nagar 785790 New Delhi
Ors. dated 110001
03.02.2014
for Rs.
7,56,000/
A Total sum
Page No. 8 of 16
of Rs.
15,20,000/
8 CR No. Indian Overseas Cheque State Bank of Both the
75/2018 Bank, Greater No.785827 India, Cheque cheques were
(CIS No. Kailash, ND dated truncated forged with
418/2018)S 04.02.2014 System Branch signature.
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
8,35,500/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Indian Do Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
Overseas 785846 New Delhi
Bank & Ors. dated 110001
04.02.2014
for Rs.
6,85,300/
A Total sum
of Rs.
15,20,800/
9 CR No. Punjab National Cheque State Bank of The cheque was
76/2018 Bank, Vishwas No.784844 India, Cheque forged with
(CIS No. Nagar, Delhi dated truncated signature
419/2018)S 01.01.2014 System Branch
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
1,65,500/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
Punjab Sansad Marg,
National New Delhi
Bank & Ors. 110001
10 CR No. ING Vysya Bank Cheque State Bank of Both the
77/2018 Ltd., No.785848 India, Cheque cheques were
(CIS No. Barakhamba dated truncated forged with
420/2018)S Road, ND 04.02.2014 System Branch signature.
tate Bank for Rs. (CTSCCPC),
8,22,700/ Ground Floor, B
of India vs.
Block, 11,
ING Vysya ING Vysya Bank Ch. No. Sansad Marg,
Bank Ltd. & Ltd., Defence 785840 New Delhi
Ors. Colony, N. Delhi dated 110001
05.02.2014
for Rs.
8,20,300/
A Total sum
of Rs.
Page No. 9 of 16
16,43,000/
11 CR No.: PNB Okhla Inds. Cheque No. SBI, CTS, The whole
56/2018 Estate ND 078218 Parliament cheque book
(CIS No. dated Street, New was
399/2018) 30.09.2016 Delhi lost/misplaced
for Rs. by the customer
4,50,000/
12 CR No.: IDBI Bank Preet Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
57/2018 Vihar, ND 909303 Parliament issued for
(CIS No. dated Street, New Rs.200/ only
400/2018) 04.11.2013 Delhi
for Rs.
20,000/
13 CR No.: Citi Bank New Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque Book of
58/2018 Delhi 760014 Parliament this number &
(CIS No. dated Street, New series was not
401/2018) 26.12.2014 Delhi received by the
for Rs. customer
25,000/
14 CR No.: IDBI Bank Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
59/2018 Paschim Vihar 400382 Parliament issued in favour
(CIS No. dated Street, New of another party
402/2018) 28.03.2015 Delhi and cheque was
for Rs. lying with the
4,85,000/ customer
15 CR No.: Central Bank of Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
60/2018 India, Janakpuri, 999510 Parliament issued in favour
(CIS No. ND dated Street, New of Shri Ketan
403/2018) 10.02.2016 Delhi Pachchigar and
for Rs. deposited in
40,000/ Prakash Society
Branch, Surat
[code09166] on
11.02.2016 for
BT. The same
cheque was used
and presented
through Central
Bank of India,
Service Branch,
New Delhi by
altering the
name of the
payee.
Page No. 10 of 16
16 CR No.: Union Bank of Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Original payee
61/2018 India, Green 164015 Parliament i.e. M/s NU
(CIS No. Park, ND dated Street, New Calcutta
404/2018) 08.11.2012 Delhi Construction
for Rs. Company had
2,75,000/ deposited the
cheque at IDBI
Bank, Lakshmi
Nagar ATM on
06.11.2012
17 CR No.: Canara Bank, Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
62/2018 Kingsway Camp, 378062 Parliament issued in the
(CIS No. ND dated Street, New name of Davis
405/2018) 19.01.2014 Delhi Value Card Pvt.
for Rs. Ltd.
2,65,000/
18 CR No.: PNB Kashmeri Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
63/2018 Gate, ND 712633 Parliament issued in favour
(CIS No. dated Street, New of Abhijeet
406/2018) 06.06.2016 Delhi Khanna was
for Rs. credited to the
77,250/ account of
Sudha Pandey
customer of
Punjab National
Bank instead of
Abhijeet Khanna
Designs
19 CR No.: HDFC Bank Ltd., Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
64/2018 Faridabad, 495792 Parliament issued for
(CIS No. Haryana dated Street, New Rs.200/ in
407/2018) 20.10.2012 Delhi favour of M/s
for Rs. Nutek India Pvt.
1,40,000/ Ltd.
20 CR No.: IOB Najafgarh, Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque Book of
65/2018 ND 993191 Parliament this number &
(CIS No. dated Street, New series was not
408/2018) 25.04.2016 Delhi received by the
for Rs. customer
32,200/
21 CR No.: HDFC Bank Ltd., Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque Book of
66/2018 HDFC Bank, 211513 Parliament this number &
(CIS No. DCM Bldng, ND dated Street, New series was not
409/2018) 15.02.2012 Delhi received by the
Page No. 11 of 16
for Rs. customer
1,50,000/
AND
Cheque No.
211512
dated
14.02.2012
for Rs.
2,50,000/
22 CR No.: Allahbad Rajouri Cheque No. SBI, CTS, Cheque was
67/2018 Garden Br. ND 229892 Parliament stolen from
(CIS No. dated Street, New Vijaya Bank.
410/2018) 18.05.2016 Delhi
for Rs.
1,40,000/
6. The Trial Court vide impuged orders dated 11.05.2018 & 30.06.2018 returned the complaints and the applications u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC of the petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try this cases. Relevant paras of the impugned orders 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.
In similar complaints filed by another counsel, reference has also been made 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 Page No. 12 of 16 that the circular cannot over rule the law stipulated by Cr.P.C. and the complainant bank has to file the complaint before the concerned police station only.
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 or order zero FIR.
7. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground that the Trial Court had committed error by holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction and is against the settled principles of law through various judicial pronouncements.
8. 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 beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
9. 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 Page No. 13 of 16 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)
10. 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 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 Page No. 14 of 16 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.
11. 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 court in whose jurisdiction consequence of a criminal act is ensued, will also have the jurisdiction.
12. Coming to the facts in the petitions, various manipulated & forged cheques of SBI were presented in different banks at different places outside the jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street, the consequence of which was ensued at SBI, CTS Branch, which falls within the area of jurisdiction of PS Parliament Street. The Page No. 15 of 16 bad cheques were cleared for payment by SBI, CTS Branch on the basis of images 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.
13. Ld. Trial Court has committed error by returning the complaints u/s. 200 Cr.PC and the applications u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC. Therefore, the revision petitions are allowd and impugned orders dated 11.05.2018 & 30.06.2018 are set aside. Trial Court is directed to decide the complaints u/s. 200 Cr.PC and the applications u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC, on merits.
14. Petitioners/revisionist are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.01.2019.
15. Trial Court Records be returned to the Trial Court along with the copy of this order.
16. Revision files be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 16.01.2019 (Santosh Snehi Mann) Addl. Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge (PC Act), CBI03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Page No. 16 of 16