Delhi District Court
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd vs Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd on 10 September, 2015
In the Court of Ms. Anu Malhotra, District & Sessions Judge
South : Saket Courts, New Delhi
(i) Criminal Revision No. 206/14
ID No.: 02406R0269502014
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Ms. Anjalika Kriplani,
G11, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi 110066. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Having its Office at:
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049.
2. Shri J.K. Mansharamani (C.A)
Director, Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049. ... Respondents
Instituted on: 15.10.2014
(ii) Criminal Revision No. 207/14
ID No.: 02406R0269552014
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Ms. Anjalika Kriplani,
G11, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi 110066. ... Petitioner
Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 1 of 14
Versus
1. Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Having its Office at:
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049.
2. Shri J.K. Mansharamani (C.A)
Director, Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049. ... Respondents
Instituted on: 15.10.2014
(iii) Criminal Revision No. 208/14
ID No.: 02406R0269532014
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Ms. Anjalika Kriplani,
G11, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi 110066. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Having its Office at:
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049.
2. Shri J.K. Mansharamani (C.A)
Director, Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049. ... Respondents
Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 2 of 14
Instituted on: 15.10.2014
(iv) Criminal Revision No. 209/14
ID No.: 02406R0269472014
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Ms. Anjalika Kriplani,
G11, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi 110066. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Having its Office at:
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049.
2. Shri J.K. Mansharamani (C.A)
Director, Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049. ... Respondents
Instituted on: 15.10.2014
(v) Criminal Revision No. 210/14
ID No.: 02406R0269422014
Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Ms. Anjalika Kriplani,
G11, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi 110066. ... Petitioner
Versus
Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 3 of 14
1. Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Having its Office at:
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049.
2. Shri J.K. Mansharamani (C.A)
Director, Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd.,
19, SFS Flats, Opp. Ansal Plaza,
New Delhi 110049. ... Respondents
Instituted on: 15.10.2014
Order reserved on: 01.09.2015
Order pronounced on: 10.09.2015
ORDER
This order shall dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 and 210/14 arising out of the impugned orders dated 04.09.2014 in CC Nos. 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 68/14 and 69/14 respectively, the impugned orders being identical in all the five CC Nos. 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 68/14 and 69/14 vide which, the Ld. MM, NI Act01 (South) has directed that the matter is at the stage of moving of an application u/s. 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that thus the case is to be tried in the said Ld. Court of the Ld. MM, NI Act01 (South) in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 4 of 14 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another' (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129, Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2014 and the Ld. MM, NI Act01 (South) has relied upon the observations in paragraph 22 (though the paragraph has been erroneously mentioned as paragraph 20 in the impugned order) of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect:
"To obviate and eradicate any legal complications, the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by us from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the Court where it is presently pending."
On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the Ld. Trial Court of the MM, NI Act01 (South) does not have territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in as much as the cheques in question which are allegedly dishonoured as allegedly issued on behalf of the petitioner are drawn at the Canara Bank, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi which is the drawee bank and that thus in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 5 of 14 State of Maharashtra And Another' (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129, in relation to the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as observed vide paragraph 21 of the said verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn. It has thus been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the proceedings in relation to the CC Nos. 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 68/14 and 69/14 have essentially to be transferred to the Courts in the New Delhi District.
On behalf of the respondents who are the complainants of the abovementioned complaint cases, the revision petitions have been vehemently opposed submitting at the outset that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Ld. MM, NI Act01 (South) and that as rightly observed by the Ld. Trial Court, the proceedings have reached the stage of moving an application u/s. 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thus the territorial jurisdiction in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another' referred to Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 6 of 14 hereinabove, itself the Court where the proceedings are pending in cases where the proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145 (2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by the Hon'ble Apex Court from the Court originally possessing the territorial jurisdiction as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another' to the Court where the proceedings are presently pending and it was thus submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders.
A further submission was made on behalf of the respondent/complainant that in terms of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 in force w.e.f. 15.06.2015 in view of the insertion of Section 142 (2) (A) and Section 142 A (1) as inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 thereby in terms of the Ordinance No. 6/2015 promulgated by the Hon'ble President of the country in force w.e.f. 15.06.2015, the cheques in question in each of the complaint cases i.e. cheque Nos. 358644 and 358653 both dated 11.09.2013 in CC No. 02/14; cheque No. 691663 dated 31.07.2013 in CC No. 03/14; cheque Nos. 691664 and 691666 both dated 31.08.2013 in CC No. 04/14; cheque No. 363939 dated 30.11.2013 in CC No. 68/14; and the Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 7 of 14 copy of cheque No. 363906 dated 31.10.2013 in CC No. 69/14 having all been delivered for collection at the Indian Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, the Courts of the MM, NI Act, South District would have the territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the proceedings apart from the jurisdiction having also been conferred on the Court of the Ld. MM, NI Act (South), in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another', as the proceedings have already reached the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended strenuously that the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 promulgated on 15.06.2015 is no longer in force, in as much as the two Houses of Parliament have not given it its assent and there has been no enactment of any Act pursuant thereto.
On behalf of the respondents, the said contention was vehemently opposed submitting to the effect that the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 was in force, as per the arguments addressed on the date 01.09.2015.
At the outset, it is essential to consider the aspect of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 being Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 8 of 14 in force or otherwise as of date i.e. 10.09.2015 when the petitions have been taken up for disposal.
In terms of Article 123 (2) of the Constitution of India, an Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 (1) of the Constitution of India as is the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 No. 6 of 2015, shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance in terms of Article 123 (2) (a) has mandatorily to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and in terms of Article 123 (2)
(b), the Ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the President.
The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 was promulgated on 15.06.2015 on which date, the Parliament was not in session as has also been observed in the Ordinance itself. The Parliament was in session thereafter from 21.07.2015 to 13.08.2015, when it was adjourned sine die.
On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that the said Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 9 of 14 withdrawn from the Rajya Sabha on 24.07.2015, qua which it is essential to observe that such withdrawal was in relation to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 introduced on 06.05.2015 which was accepted by the Lok Sabha on 13.05.2015. In relation to the present Ordinance of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 which has come into force only on 15.06.2015, the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced on 27.07.2015 and was passed by the Lok Sabha on the date 06.08.2015. However, till the time Parliament was in session till the date 13.08.2015, the Bill did not become an Act and there is nothing to indicate any deliberations by the Rajya Sabha in relation thereto. In terms of Article 123 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India, the period of six weeks with effect from the date 21.07.2015, the date of reassembly of the Parliament has ceased on the date 31.08.2015. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the proceedings have essentially to continue in the Court of the Ld. MM, NI Act01 (South) in terms of Article 142 (2) (a) and Section 142 (A) (1) in view of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, in as much as the cheque return memos have been issued by the Indian Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of South District, Delhi, cannot be accepted.
Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 10 of 14 As regards the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that the matter has already reached the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in as much as the notice u/s. 251 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 has already been framed on 08.07.2014 to which the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and the matter, vide order dated 08.07.2014 of the Ld. MM, had been renotified for moving of the application u/s. 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and cross examination of the complainant's witnesses for 29.08.2014 whereafter contentions were sought to be raised on 29.08.2014 on behalf of the accused that the proceedings could not continue in the South District, Delhi, it is essential to advert to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case 'CISCO Systems Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Tele Tech Pvt. Ltd.' 2015 SCC Online Del 6535 in paragraph 18 of the said verdict:
"18. There may be three situations when notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C is served upon an accused;
(i) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C, the matter is fixed for DE as no application as envisaged in Section 145 (2) of the Act is moved by the accused;
Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 11 of 14
(ii) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C, an application under Section 145 (2) of the Act is moved by an accused but it is yet to be allowed by a Magistrate; and
(iii) After serving notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, the application moved under Section 145 (2) of the Act is moved by an accused for crossexamination of the complainant, has been allowed by the Magistrate......"
It is essential to observe that vide paragraph 19 of the abovementioned verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it has been specifically observed to the effect that the situation at no. 2 as in the instant case where the notice u/s. 251 of the Cr.P.C has been framed and even where an application has been moved by the accused u/s. 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is yet to be allowed by the Magistrate, the matter cannot be said to have been reached the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or beyond. In the instant case, it is essential to observe that even the application in terms of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has not yet been filed by the accused, much less been allowed. It is thus apparent that in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 12 of 14 Maharashtra And Another' (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129, as observed vide paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, the territorial jurisdiction in such cases would have to be restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was allegedly committed, which in the present context is where the cheques were dishonoured by the banks on which they were drawn and thus in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another', it is apparent that the complaint would have to be returned to the complainant for filing it in the proper Court as observed vide paragraph 22 of the said verdict. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 04.09.2014 of the Ld. Trial Court in CC Nos. 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 68/14 and 69/14 are thus set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 and 210/14 are, thus, allowed.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court records to proceed further in accordance with law and the records of the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 and 210/14 be consigned to the Record Room. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date 29.09.2015 at 02.00 p.m. Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 13 of 14 The signed copy of this order be placed on the records of the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 and 210/14.
Announced in the Open Court (Anu Malhotra) on 10th day of September, 2015 District & Sessions Judge (South) Saket/New Delhi Crl. R. Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 14 of 14