TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the petitioner/accused. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 05.03.2018, has accordingly approached this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the said proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that there is a bar of the liability/debt being legally enforceable and also on the ground of territorial jurisdictional bar. 4. The respondent on receipt of notice has accordingly entered appearance and has contested the assertion of the petitioner herein. 5. Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that only two grounds of argument will be urged before this Court, the first being that the complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner(Judicial), Shillong which was endorsed to one of the Magistrates, is time barred (though this issue was not pressed in these proceedings in due course) and secondly, that the ground of maintainability of the proceedings before the Trial Court is questioned as the Court which took cognizance of the said complaint lacks territorial jurisdiction, which fact was also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed by the respondent/complainant before a court having no territorial jurisdiction, any order passed by such court is a nullity and void ab initio as was held in the case of Balvant N. Vishwamitra & Ors v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs & Ors: (2004) 8 SCC, 706 and as such, this petition may be allowed and the proceedings in C.R. Case No 1(T) of 2018 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shillong be quashed. 11. Per contra, Mr. N.M. Mansuri, learned counsel for the respondent has chosen to oppose the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the two grounds urged before this court, that is, on the issue of the complaint filed before the court below being time barred and secondly, on the ground of jurisdiction. 12. It is submitted that though the petitioner had not press on the ground of the said complaint being time barred, however Mr. Mansuri has submitted that the factum of the dispute between the parties emanated from an Agreement executed between them, wherein the petitioner has made a promise to repay the amount availed as loan to the respondent, which Agreement takes the effects of a contract being governed by Section 25(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cond category since evidence has already been led. 16. Mr. Mansuri has admitted that the reliance and reference of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of P. Mohanraj (supra) is correct to the extent concerning the place of jurisdiction, however it is submitted that only the portions of the judgment at paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod case has been overruled and not the entire judgment. 17. To support his contention, Mr. Mansuri has referred to the case of Surendra Banjara v. State of UP & Anr: (2018) ACD 1071 at paragraph 20, wherein reference was made to the ratio in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod. Another case cited is the case of M/s Jeet Radiators and Meter Works and Anr. v. M/s Namdhari Traders and Anr, wherein under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has maintained the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod case as well as the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 and has submitted that the judgment in the said cases referred to above, have been passed after the amendment of the Negotiable Instruments Act came into exist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. To obviate and eradicate any legal complications, the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by us from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the Court where it is those where the accused/respondent has not been properly served) shall be returned to the complainant for filing in the proper Court, in consonance with our exposition of the law. If such complaints are filed/refiled within thirty days of their return, they shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time barred." 25. However, the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod case has been legislatively overruled by an amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide Amendment Act 26 of 2015 (effective from 15.06.2015) wherein, Section 142 in the principal Act has been re-numbered as Sub-section (1) and following this Sub-section (2) has b....