TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 15,48,639/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has relied upon Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neko Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609, Harnam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 and a decision of this Court in Online IT Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 2695/2009 and Crl. M.A. No. 9081/2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is based in Ladakh and the bank from which the dishonoured cheque was issued is situated at Panchkula, Haryana. 2. Respondent No. 1 in the reply to the petition has stated that the payments made by the petitioner were credited in the account maintained by respondent No. 1 at Delhi. Respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dishonoured; (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period; (c) that the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 5. Examining the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases and referring to Sections 177 - 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510, at page 517 it has been observed: 11. We fail to comprehend as to how the trial court could have found so regarding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is uncertainty as to where, among different localities, the offence would have been committed the trial can be had in a court having jurisdiction over any of those localities. The provision has further widened the scope by stating that in case where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area the court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Further again, Section 179 of the Code stretches its scope to a still wider horizon. It reads thus: 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.--When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings were held in Delhi before the supplies were made. There is a dispute about the place or location where the debt or liability had accrued and were/are payable. There is a dispute about the place where the dishonoured cheque was delivered to the complainant. Reply of the petitioner dated 12th January, 2009 has been quoted above. These disputes cannot be decided without parties leading oral evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been referred to and examined in K. Bhaskaran (supra). Perse and ex facie it cannot be said that the act of filing the criminal complaint in Delhi after presentation of the cheque by the respondent-complainant to their bankers in Delhi and its dishonour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do not disclose commission of an offence. In the present case, the learned trial court has taken cognizance and was satisfied that the court has territorial jurisdiction. Learned trial court has not dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and no such objection was raised. In case these objections or contentions had been raised at the pre-summoning stage, the said respondent No. 1 could have filed an additional affidavit by way of evidence along with supporting documents to justify that the criminal courts in Delhi have jurisdiction. This question has now been raised before the High Court and the respondent No. 1 have filed the affidavit and documents and have taken a clear and categorical stand. It is furth....