2018 (4) TMI 420 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds jurisdiction in Bhagalpur under amended law, emphasizing cheque delivery location.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction and forum convenience, affirming jurisdiction in Bhagalpur under the amended ... Territorial jurisdiction - dishonor of cheque - the aforesaid cheques issued by the petitioner/accused were deposited/presented for encashment at Bhagalpur which gave the sole jurisdiction to a competent Court at Bhagalpur to try the case - Held that: - since the cheques in question in the case in hand were presented at Bhagalpur in the bank account of O.P. No. 2, only the Court at Bhagalpur shall have the jurisdiction to try the instant complaint. According to Section 125 of the Act, the holder of the cheque may cross it generally or specially. In that event, even if a cheque is un-crossed, if it is presented in the drawee bank (payee bank), it is aimed at getting encashed through the account only - there is no option for the complainant or the accused to seek or confer jurisdiction on any other Court except the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction, the payee bank where the cheque has been presented, is located. The present petition has been filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus necessitating a discussion on the issue of forum convenience. The criminal case/police case lodged by the complainant/O.P. No. 2 may be against the petitioner only but that case operates in a different field, for a different offence or set of offences. The O.P. No. 2 has deliberately chosen to file a complaint at Bhagalpur where he maintains an account in which the cheques were presented and seeks to oppose the present petition as well. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Territorial Jurisdiction2. Forum Convenience3. Interpretation of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Territorial Jurisdiction:The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.01.2017 by the learned A.C.J.M-XIV, Bhagalpur, which rejected the transfer of the case from Bhagalpur to Katihar on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose in Katihar, where the cheques were dishonored, and thus, the case should be tried there. The court, however, emphasized that under the amended Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction lies where the cheques were delivered for collection, which in this case was Bhagalpur. The court cited Section 142(2) of the Act, stating that the place where the payee's bank is situated holds jurisdiction if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.2. Forum Convenience:The petitioner also argued for the transfer of the case to Katihar for the convenience of the parties, as another related police case was pending there. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the criminal case/police case operates in a different field and for different offences. The court held that interfering would only result in forum non-convenience, as the complainant deliberately chose Bhagalpur for filing the complaint where he maintained an account.3. Interpretation of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The court provided an in-depth analysis of the amendments to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its implications on jurisdiction. Before the amendment, jurisdiction could be claimed at multiple locations related to the offence, leading to confusion. The amendment clarified that jurisdiction lies either at the location of the payee's bank (where the cheque is delivered for collection) or the drawer's bank (if presented otherwise). The court referenced several Supreme Court cases, including K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Harman Electronics Private Limited vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited, to illustrate the evolution of the interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Act. The court concluded that the amendment supersedes previous judgments, and in this case, Bhagalpur holds jurisdiction as the cheques were presented there.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments for transferring the case to Katihar. The judgment reaffirmed the jurisdictional provisions under the amended Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and emphasized the principle of forum convenience in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.