Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Naresh Chander vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 25 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ5090
ORDER G.L. Gupta, J.
1. This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 27-1-99 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-accused dt. 2-11-98.
2. The relevant facts are these, respondent Surendra Kumar deals in cotton at Sri Ganganagar. Accused Naresh Chandra, who is a trader of Kanpur, purchased cotton from the complainant respondent from 1-10-95 to 31-3-96 worth Rs. 12,20,785.26. After understanding the account, the petitioner accused accepted the liability and gave seven cheques worth Rs. one lakh each payable on various dates to the complainant at Abhore. The cheques were drawn on the State Bank of India, Kanpur. The complainant respondent presented those cheques for collection to the State Bank of Patiala, Abhore Branch on 10-12-96. The State Bank of India, Kanpur, however, did not honour the cheques and returned them with a note 'refer to drawer'. The complainant respondent, gave notice to the petitioner accused on 9-1-97 from his advocate at Abhore. As payment was not made by the respondent accused, complainant Surendra Kumar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar.
3. After the accused petitioner appeared in Court, he filed an application Under Section 219, Cr.P.C. challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter. In his reply, the complainant respondent pleaded that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner accused.
4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no cause of action or part of it had arisen at Sri Ganganagar as the cheques were issued by the petitioner at Abhore, they were presented to the Bank at Abhore, they were dishonoured at Kanpur and even the notice of dishonour was given to the petitioner from Abhore. He submitted that either the Court at Abhore or Court at Kanpur only could entertain the matter. He relied on the cases of A.M. Kunhi v. K.K. Abdul 1996 Cri LJ 2395 (Kerala) and Alpana v. Mohan Lal 1993 Cri LJ 1008 (Him Pra). The further contention of Mr. Singh was that Under Section 219, Cr.P.C. only three offences of the same kind committed within a period of twelve months may be charged and tried together and as the instant case is of dishonour of seven cheques, they could not be made subject matter of one complaint and one charge. He cited the case of Printo Stick v. M.L. Oswal 1997 Cri LJ 2122 (Madras).
5. On the other hand Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the accused-petitioner had purchased cotton from Sri Ganganagar, therefore, initial cause of action had arisen at Sri Ganganagar. According to him, it was the duty of the accused petitioner to make payment at Sri Ganganagar after the cheques had been dishonoured and therefore, the Court at Sri Ganganagar has got jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He cited the cases of Rakesh Hemkumar Porwal v. Narain Dhendu Joglekar 1993 Cri LJ 680 (Bombay) and M.M. Malik v. Prem Kumar 1991 Cri LJ 2594 (Punj & Har).
6. I have given the matter may thoughtful consideration. It is not disputed that the accused-petitioner had purchased cotton from the respondent at Sri Ganganagar. It has therefore, to be accepted that the initial cause of action had arisen at Sri Ganganagar.
7. It will not make any difference that the cheques had not been issued at Sri Ganganagar and the intimation of dishonour was not received by the complainant at Sri Ganganagar or that the notice of dishonour was not sent from Sri Ganganagar. In the matter of dishonour of cheques, the cause of action arises only after a notice of dishonour is sent to the drawer and yet the drawer fails to make the payment of the amount of the cheque to the payee. Once the notice was sent to the accused petitioner that the cheques issued by him had been dishonoured by the Bank, it was the duty of the accused petitioner to have made payment of the cheques to the payee i.e. the complainant. Since the liability of the cheques had arisen from the goods supplied by the complainant to the accused, he was liable to pay the amount to the complainant at Sri Ganganagar. Therefore, the Court at Sri Ganganagar had certainly got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. A similar question arose before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M.M. Malik v. Prem Kumar 1991 Cri LJ 2594 (supra), wherein it was observed as follows :-
Dishonouring of the cheque was only a part of cause of action and the offence was completed only when the petitioner-company failed to discharge its liability to the creditors (the complainant herein). For discharging the debt, the petitioners had to find out their creditors and since the creditor has its office at Pehowa, the offence was completed at that place and in this situation, the Court at Kurukshetra had the territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.
9. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rakesh Namkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar 1993 Cri LJ 680 (supra) held that the Court in whose jurisdiction the drawee resided was competent to entertain the complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was observed that the anatomy of Section 138 comprises certain necessary components before the offence can be said to be complete, the last of them being the act of non-payment in spite of 15 days having elapsed after receipt of the final notice.
10. In the rulings relied upon by Mr. Singh, this question was not considered that if a complaint can be filed where the cause of action had initially arisen. It may be that a complaint can also be filed in the Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the place where cheque was issued or cheque was presented for collection. The rulings cited by learned counsel for the respondents are applicable to the fact situation of the instant case.
11. In the instant case, the complainant was fully justified in approaching the local Court having jurisdiction over the area where the payment was to be made to him in the initial instance. As already stated, on the dishonour of the cheque it was the duty of the accused-petitioner to make payment to the complainant at Sri Ganganagar. The Court at Sri Ganganagar, therefore, has rightly entertained the complaint.
12. As to the second contention it may be stated that the dishonour of seven cheques does not give rise to seven causes of actions. A reading of the complaint shows that all the seven cheques were drawn against one account and though they were payable on different dates yet the complainant presented all of them on one date i.e. on 10-12-96 and all of them were returned under one intimation dt. 16-12-96 and one notice was given in respect of dishonour of all the cheques. It is obvious that the facts constitute only one offence. It cannot be said that seven offences have been committed by the accused. As such Section 219, Cr.P.C. does not come in the way of the Court to try the case. I am unable to subscribe to the view taken in the case of Printo Stick 1997 Cri LJ 2122 (Madras) (supra).
13. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.J.M. is the abuse of the process of the Court. There being no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.