Karnataka High Court
M/S Abp Consultancy Pvt Ltd vs M/S Iris Computers Limited on 4 March, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRL.P.NO.2154/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. ABP CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.253, LEWIS ROAD,
BJB NAGAR,
BHUVANESWAR 751 014.
BY ITS MG. DIRECTOR,
MR.BISHRANT KUMAR PANDA.
2. MR.BISHRANT KUMAR PANDA,
MANGAING DIRECTOR,
M/S. ABP CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.253, LEWIS ROAD,
BJB NAGAR, BHUVANESWAR 751 014.
3. MRS.ANAMIKA PANDA,
DIRECTOR,
M/S. ABP CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.253, LEWIS ROAD,
BJB NAGAR,
BHUVANESWAR 751 014. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.R.ANANTHA MURTHY, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. IRIS COMPUTERS LIMITED,
NO.108, PRESTIGE CENTER POINT,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.RAVI KUMAR, ADV.,)
-2-
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 20.12.2012 PASSED BY THE XV A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.6191/2009 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR DISCHARGE
U/S 239 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.6191/2009 pending on the file of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, have come up in this proceeding seeking quashing of the order dated 20.12.2012 in dismissing their application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their discharge from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') alleged against them in C.C. No.6191/2009.
2. Admittedly, the dispute between the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 3 is with reference to a -3- cheque issued by accused Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the complainant for a sum of `.37,12,081/- and subsequently, the stop payment is issued by them in respect of the said cheque. The fact that the complainant is a dealer in Computers and accused Nos.1 to 3 had entered into a transaction for purchase of Computers is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in that behalf, a cheque was issued by accused Nos.1 to 3 for a sum of `.37,12,081/- in favour of the complainant and the said cheque was presented for realization through the banker of the complainant at Bangalore, namely, Citibank and when the said cheque was presented for realization, an instruction was issued by accused Nos.1 to 3 to stop payment. Hence, a notice is issued calling upon accused Nos.1 to 3 to honour the aforesaid cheque. Subsequently, after waiting for the mandatory period, the present proceeding in PCR No.4240/2009 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act is initiated before the Court of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It is seen -4- that in the said proceedings, cognizance was taken and notice was ordered to be issued to accused. On service of the same, accused have filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., seeking their discharge on the ground that the entire transaction between accused and complainant has taken place within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar and the Court of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in PCR No.4240/2009 and there is an error on the part of the said Court in taking cognizance of the same. It is seen that the said application was heard and the Court below was pleased to dismiss the same by its order dated 20th December 2012, which is under challenge in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.6191/2009. Perused the order dated 20.12.2012 on an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On going through the said order, it -5- is clearly seen that the Court below, after framing points for consideration, has categorically held that in view of the fact that the cheque, which was issued by accused Nos.1 to 3 being presented by the complainant through its banker, namely, Citibank at Bangalore and having received intimation that payment is stopped on the said cheque, complainant has rightly initiated proceedings by issuing notice and filing complaint within the jurisdiction of Bangalore. Therefore, the contention urged by petitioners herein that the entire transaction has taken place in Bhubaneswar and as such, the cheque, which was issued by accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.6191/2009, could not have been presented for realization in Bangalore is rightly not accepted and the jurisdiction of the Court at Bangalore in taking cognizance of the complaint is accepted and consequently, the application filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking discharge is dismissed. On going through the order impugned, it is seen that the reason given by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -6- while dismissing the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., appears to be just and proper. In the light of there being neither illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dismissing the said application, the question of admitting this criminal petition to quash the same does not arise.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma