Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Vide impugned order dated 10.10.2014, learned trial court after considering the judgment in „Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another‟, 2014 (9) Supreme Court Cases 129 came to the conclusion that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter and returned the complaint to the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the cheque was payable at par at all branches of drawer bank in India, since the cheque in question got dishonoured at New Delhi and in terms of the Circular 3089/DHC/GAZ/VI.E.2(a) 2008 dated 22.10.2008 issued by this court the courts at Dwarka would have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint and thus the petitioner had rightly filed the complaint before the learned trial court in Delhi. He also stated that now a days, almost all the branches of the bank are covered under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and in terms of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RBI/2012-13/163 DPSS.CO.CHD. No.274/03.01.02/2012-13 dated 10.08.2012 (Annexure-G), all CBS enabled banks have been asked to issue only „payable at par‟/ „multi- city‟ CTS 2010 standard cheques to all eligible customers. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the essential features of multi-city/ cheques payable at par is that the holder of cheque can present the same at any CBS enabled branch of the drawee bank in order to encash the said cheque. That being so, the complainant is well within its right to initiate prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Act at the place where the branch in which the cheque in question was presented for its encashment irrespective of the fact that such branch was not the home branch of the drawee bank where the accused was having the bank account.