Allahabad High Court
Lalit Kumar Chhibar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 March, 2018
Author: Amar Singh Chauhan
Bench: Amar Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD RESERVED/AFR Court No.- 20 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8426 of 2010 Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Chhibar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Shri Sivendra Raj Singhal, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicant, Lalit Kumar Chhibar, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash proceeding of Complaint Case No. 203 of 2009 (Yogesh Kumar Dutta Vs. Lalit Kumar Chhibbar), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and further prayed to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.
Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for the adjudication of the application are that the complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant had issued post-dated cheque no. 865571 dated 10.8.2008 of Rs. 3 lakhs, which was presented in his saving bank account no. 4070000100062802 of Punjab National Bank, Kanth Road Branch, Moradabad to get the aforesaid cheque credited in his said account but the aforesaid cheque was returned to the opposite party no. 2 by his banker with the endorsement 'no debit allowed.' It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that complainant is resident of New Delhi and alleged transaction of plot took place at NOIDA not at Moradabad. The opposite party no. 2 presented the cheque in question at his account at Bank of India, Madhu Vihar, I.P. Extension, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the cheque was issued at New Delhi and the alleged transaction with respect to the said cheque was took place at New Delhi, thus as per the precedent, the Moradabad Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint.
Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the cheque was presented for encashment at Moradabad, therefore, Moradabad Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of Section 142 (A) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The scope and ambit of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2612, and observed as follows:
"The grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings basically are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) where the uncontraverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection".
In the case in hand, as per complaint and summoning order, the cheque was presented for encashment at Punjab National Bank, Kanth Road Branch, Moradabad, which was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'no debit allowed.' The question whether the amount has been repaid to the opposite party no. 2 or the cheque was really presented at the Bank of India, Madhu Vihar, I.P. Extension, New Delhi is a matter of trial which can only be decided by giving the evidence and the complaint ought not be dismissed on the threshold of the purported ground that the amount has been paid and the Court has no jurisdiction as the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Inderpal Singh, [2016 CRI.L.J. 553], it has been that in view of Section 142(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act as amended by Second Ordinance 2015, the territorial jurisdiction would be the place where the cheque is delivered for collection and provision of Cr.P.C. will not apply to the cheque dishonored case on account of non-obstante clause in Section 142(A)(1) Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the instant case, the prima facie cheque in question was delivered for encashment before the Punjab National Bank, Kanth Road Branch, Moradabad, therefore, Moradabad Court has jurisdiction to try the matter. Most of the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Only in cases where Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
However, in view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the proceedings and, therefore, refuse to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid case.
Accordingly, the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018/Prakhar