M/S APEX DISTRIBUTORS & ANR.versusM/S TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.

                       [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1138


A              MIS APEX DISTRIBUTORS & ANR.
                                    v.
                 MIS TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.
            (Transfer Petition (CRL.) No. 197 of 2012)

B                        AUGUST 5, 2014

            [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.406 - Transfer'bf
c criminal complaint - Dishonour of cheque issued on Ve/lore
  b_ank - Complaint uls. 138 NI Act filed in Delhi - Transfer
  Petition seeking transfer from Delhi Court to Ve/lore Court -
  Held: The cheque was dishonoured at Ve/lore where the bank
  on which it was drawn was located - No reason why the
D complaint filed by the respondents should not be transferred
  to Ve/lore for further proceedings - The fact that petitioner
  No. 2 was suffering from several medical problems also
  relevant for deciding the transfeiof the proceedings from Delhi
  to Ve/lore - The complaint directed to be transferred from
E Courts in Delhi to the Magistrate at Ve/lore who shall try the
  case himself or transfer the same to any other Court
  competent to try the same - Issue of statutory notice
  demanding payment of cheque amount in Delhi would not
  vest Delhi Court with jurisdiction to entertain complaint and
  try the case - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138 -
F Notice.
       The petitioners issued a cheque on Vyasa Bank,
  Vellore, Tamilnadu in favour of respondent which got
  dishonoured. The respondent issued a notice on the
G petitioners in Delhi for making payment of cheque
  amount. As the petitioners did not make the payment, the
  respondent filed a complaint und1n section 138 of the
  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The \complainant
  justified the institution of the case in Delhi on the ground
H                               1138




                                '
  APEX DISTRIBUTORS & ANR. v. TIMEX GROUP              1139
                 INDIA LTD.
that the statutory notices demanding payment of the             A
cheque amount were issued to the petitioners from Delhi.
The Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners.

     The petitioners filed the instant Transfer Petition
under 406, Cr.P.C. for seeking transfer of complaint filed
                                                                B
under·section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 pending before Delhi Court to the court competent
to try same at Pondicherry.

    The question which arose for consideration was
whether the court in Delhi had the jurisdiction to ·entertain   C
the complaint in the facts and circums.tances of the case
especially when issue of statutory notices was the only
reason urged by the respondent-complainant for filing a
complaint in Delhi.
                                                                D
    Allowing the Transfer Petition, the Court
    HELD: 1. Issue of a statutory notice demanding
payment of the cheque amount is not sufficient to vest
the Delhi Courts with the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint and try the case. [Para 3) [1144-H]                   E

    2. The cheque in question was dishonoured at
Vellore where the bank on which it was drawn is located.
There is no reason why the complaint filed by the
respondents sho.uld not be transferred to Vellore for           F
further proceedings. The fact that petitioner No.2 is
suffering from several medical problems is also relevant
for deciding the transfer of the proceedings from Delhi
to Vellore. The complaint is directed to be transferred
from Courts in New Delhi to the Chief Judicial Magistrate       G
at Vellore who shall try the case himself or transfer the
same to any other Court competent to try the.same.
[Paras 4 & 5] [1142-E-G]

    Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic
                                                                H
        1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A       India {P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720: 2008 (17) SCR 487 • relied
        on.

       Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
  & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009; K. Bhaskaran v.
B Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510: 1999
  (3) Suppl. SCR 271 - referred to.

                            Case Law Reference:
            2008(17)SCR 487          Relied on             Para 3
c           1999(3)Suppl.SCR271 Reffered to                Para 3
             CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
        (Criminal)No.197 of 2012.
    \
            Petition U/S 406 of Criminal Procedure Code.
D
            D.K. Thakur, Devendra Jha, Sushila Kumar, Debasis
        Misra.for the Petitioners.

            Vikram Dhokalia (for Dua Associates) for the Respondent.
E           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. In this petition under Section 406 of
  the Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek transfer of Criminal Complaint
  No.3960 of 2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
F Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Metropolitan
  Magistrate, Patiala House Court at New Delhi to the Court
  competent to try the same at Pondicherry. The cheque in
  question appears to have been issued on Vyasya Bank Ltd.,
  Vellore, Tamil Nadu. When presented for encashment the same
G was dishonoured, whereupon, the respondent got notices
  issued to the petitioners asking them to pay the cheque amount
  within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of the
  receipt of the said notices. Failure of the petitioners to make
  the payment led to the filing of criminal complaint No.3960 of
H
   APEX DISTRIBUTORS & ANR. v. TIMEX GROUP                    1141
           INDIA LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 2008 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House, New         A
 Delhi in which the Court took cognizance and issued summons
 to the petitioners. The complaint, it is noteworthy, justified the
 institution of the case in Delhi on the solitary ground that the
  statutory notices demanding payment of the cheque amount
, had been issued to the petitioners from Delhi. In para 13 of the     B
.complaint, the complainant said:

     "That the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction
     of this Hon'ble Court in as much as the notice of demand
     for the Cheque amount was issued to all the Accused
     from Delhi. Therefore, this Hon 'ble Court has the                C
     jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present
     complaint."

      2. The petitioners' case, in the present transfer petition, is
that the cheque in question was not in discharge of any debt           D
or liability but had been given to the respondent-company by
way of security. Dishonour of any such cheque was not,
according to the petitioners, an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Act aforementioned. That apart, the
petitioners claim that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction        E
to entertain the complaint. Simply because the statutory notices
were issued to the petitioners from Delhi did not clothe the
Courts in Delhi to take cognizance of the offence assuming that
the same had been committed. Multiple ailments of Petitioner
No.2 are also urged as a ground for transfer of the proceedings        F
from Delhi to Pondicherry.

     3. The only question that primarily arises for our
consideration is whether the Courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction
to entertain th~ complaint in the facts and circumstances of the
case.especially when issue of statutory notices was the only           G
reason urged by the respondent-complainant for fiiing a
complaint in Delhi. Issue of a statutory notice demanding
payment of the cheque amount is, in our opinion, not sufficient
to vest the Delhi Courts with the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint and try the case. We say so on the authority of the          H
    1142      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A decision of this Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v.
  National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 where
  this aspect was examined at length. This Court ruled that issue
  of a statutory notice cannot constitute a valid ground for
  conferring jurisdiction upon the Court concerned to take
B cognizance of an offence under Section 138. That position has
  been reiterated in a recent decision delivered on 1st August,
  2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of
  Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009. In
  Dashrath Rupsingh's case (supra) this Court has overruled the
c earlier decision delivered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court
  in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an & Anr. (1999)
  7 sec 510 upon which the respondent sought to place reliance
  in support of their contention that Delhi Court could exercise
  jurisdiction based on the fact that notice of demand of the
  cheque amount was issued from Delhi.
0
       ·4. In the circumstances and keeping in view the admitted
  factual position that the cheque in question was dishonoured
  at Vellore where the bank on which it was drawn is located, we
  see no reason why the complaint filed by the respondents
E should not be transferred to Vellore for further proceedings. The
  fact that petitioner No.2 is suffering f~om several medical
  problems will also, in our opinion, be taken care by the transfer
  of the proceedings from Delhi to Vellore.

F      5. We accordingly allow this petition and direct transfer
  Criminal Complaint No.3960 of 2008 titled M/s Timex Group
  India Ltd. v. Mis Apex Distributers & Anr. from Metropolitan
  Magistrate at Patiala House Courts in New Delhi to the Chief
  Judicial Magistrate at Vellore who shall try the case himself or
G transfer the same to any other Court competent to try the same.
  No costs.

    Devika Gujral                            Transfer petition allowed ..