Karnataka High Court
Sri K Hanumanthappa vs Sri K B Nagaraj on 7 February, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2016
BETWEEN:-
SRI K HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KOGGANUR VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri: VISHWAJITH SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI K B NAGARAJ
S/O K S BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O H KALAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: P UDAY SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER 26.04.2016 MADE IN CRL.R.P.24/2016 BY THE
COURT OF THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT DAVANAGERE AND
THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2016 MADE IN C.C.NO.2626/2009 BY
THE COURT OF III ADDL. JMFC, DAVANAGERE.
THIS CRL. P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., calling in question the order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.R.P.No.24/2016 confirming the orders passed by the III Additional Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC., Davanagere.
2. Facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that pursuant to the amendment to Negotiable Instruments Act, by insertion of Section 142 (2), the petitioner herein sought for transfer of C.C.No.2626/2009 pending on the file of III Additional JMFC., Davanagere to the Court of II Additional JMFC., Davanagere on the ground that the cheque in question was delivered for collection through Shiva Co- operative Bank, APMC yard Branch, Davanagere which falls within the local jurisdiction of RMC yard police station, Davanagere, which in turn comes within the local limits of JMFC-II Court, Davanagere. The learned JMFC., however rejected the application mainly on the ground that the matter having been transferred to the said Court by orders of the 3 Sessions Judge on the administrative side, it was incompetent to re-transfer the said proceedings to the JMFC- II Court. When the petitioner carried the matter in revision, the learned Sessions Judge declined to entertain the revision petition on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Sessions Judge held that the matter was initially dealt with by the JMFC-III Court and the order passed by the JMFC-III Court was taken up in revision and in the revision the same having been remanded for fresh trial, it was necessary that the matter should be heard by the JMFC- III Court. Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge held that since on the Administrative side an order was made transferring these matters, as all the Magistrates are having equal jurisdiction, JMFC -III Court is also equally competent to hear and dispose of the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the reasoning assigned by the lower courts are contrary to the intendment of the amendment to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4
4. The learned counsel for the respondent however submits that by virtue of Section 12 of Cr.P.C., all the jurisdictional Magistrates are empowered to enquire and try the matters falling within their local limits. Therefore, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. The amended Section 142(2) of The Negotiable Instruments(Amendment) Act, 2015 reads as under:-
Section 142(2) - The offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction-
"(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated."5
Explanation:- For the purpose of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder-in-due- course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder-in-due-course, as the case may be, maintains the account."
6. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question was presented to Shiva Co-operative Bank, Davanagere and the said bank issued an acknowledgement for having dishonored the same. The learned JMFC has specifically noted that Shiva Co-operative Bank is situated at APMC yard, Davanagere. The APMC yard comes within the RMC yard police station. The said police station comes within the limits of JMFC-II Court, Davanagere. In the wake of this finding, there cannot be any manner of doubt that in view of the amendment to Section 142, only the Court of JMFC- II, Davanagere has jurisdiction to deal and to try the case.
7. The learned Sessions Judge has declined to allow the application solely on the ground that at the earlier instance on the Administrative side, the matter was transferred to the 6 JMFC III Court and therefore after remand, the matter is required to dealt with by the same Court. This reasoning is wholly contrary to Section 142A(1) of the amendment which specifically mandates that, Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if sub-section had been in force at all material times.
8. In the light of this provision, both the reasoning assigned by the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The administrative orders and the remand order made in the earlier proceedings cannot prevail over the statutory provisions which require the matter to be dealt with only by the court having jurisdiction in terms of Section 142A(2). In that view of the matter, the proper court to hear and try the dispute is JMFC - II Court, Davanagere.
7
9. For the above reasons, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. C.C.No.2626/2009 is directed to be tried by JMFC - II Court, Davanagere.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complaint is pending since the year 2007 and at the earlier instance also, the matter has been remanded and therefore taking into consideration all these aspects, direction be issued to the trial court to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
11. Having regard to the above circumstances, the trial court is directed to dispose of the petition within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-