Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioners in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondents against them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that Delhi Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain and try these complaints. According to the petitioners, they are carrying business in Kundli, in District Sonepat, Haryana, cheques in question were issued in Haryana, cheques were drawn at Punjab National Bank, HSIDC Complex, Kundli (Haryana) and the notice of demand is alleged to have been sent to the petitioners in Haryana, though it was not received by them.

2. The respondents have contested the petition and have claimed that Delhi Court does have jurisdiction in the matter as Commissionerate, Central Excise falls under the jurisdiction of Chief Commissioner of Central Excise having office in Delhi and notice demanding the amount of the cheque was also issued from Delhi.

3. It is not in dispute that Som Sugandh Industries Ltd., the company which issued the cheques in question and is the primary accused in the complaint filed by the respondents, is having its office works in Village Nathupur, Kundli, District Sonepat of Haryana. This is not the case of the respondent that the company also has office, factory or other place of business in Delhi. There is no allegation to this effect in the complaint filed by the respondent.

4. According to the petitioners, cheques in question were issued to Superintendent, Central Excise (Anti Evasion) Rohtak. This factual assertion has not been disputed by the respondent. Even otherwise, this fact is evident from the cheques issued by the company, which have been issued in favour of Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Commissionerate, Rohtak.

5. It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question were drawn on Punjab National Bank, HSIDC Complex, Kundli, Sonepat (Haryana). This is also evident from a perusal of the cheques, copies of which have been filed with the petitions, and has otherwise not been disputed by the respondents.

15. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, all the three complaints, subject matter of these petitions, are liable to be returned to the complainant, for filing them before a competent court of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents states that in case the complaints are directed to be returned, they would present the same before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. Hence, the trial court is directed to return the complaints, subject matter of these petitions, to the complainant in order to enable it to institute them before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.