SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES & ANR.versusINDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES. LTD.

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 375


         SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES & ANR.                       A
                             v..
        INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES. LTD.
         (Transfer Petition (CRL.) No.403 of 2013)
                     AUGUST 5, 2014
                                                                B
        [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

      Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Dishonour of
cheque - Transfer of complaint - Petitioner borrowed loan from
respondent-company - Cheque issued in partial repayment C
of the loan amount and drawn on Bank in Bangalore, when
presented for encashment to Bank in Gurgaon was
dishonoured - Complaint under s. 138 of the 1881 Act -
Magistrate at Gurgaon took cognizance and summoned the
petitioners for appearance to face the trial - Transfer petition D
uls.406 CrPC seeking transfer of the complaint from Gurgaon
to the competent Court at Bangalore - Held: The only reason
the complainant claimed jurisdiction for the Courts at Gurgaon
 was that the complainant-respondent had issued the statutory
notices relating to dishonour of the cheque from Gurgaon - E
However, issue of statutory notice cannot by itself confer
jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of offence u/s.
 138 of the 1881 Act - The complainant a/so tried to justify
jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the
 cheque was presented for collection there, however, such plea F
not tenable -On either ground, the Courts in Gurgaon could
 not assume jurisdiction - Complaint in question accordingly
 transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Gurgaon,
 Haryana to the Court of competent jurisdiction of Chief
 Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore - Code of Criminal G
 Procedure, 1973 - s.406 - Transfer Petition.

   The petitioner borrowed loan of Rs.15,00,0001-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakh) for business purposes from

                             375                                H
    376      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A respondent-company. A cheque allegedly issued in partial
  repayment of the loan amount and drawn on the
  Syndicate Bank, City Market Branch, Bangalore, when
  presented for encashment to ING Vysya Bank, Gurgaon
  was dishonoured resulting in the issue of statutory
B notices to the petitioners and eventual filing of a
  complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at
  Gurgaon under Section 138 of The Negotiable
  Instruments Act, 1881. The Magistrate took cognizance
  and summoned the petitioners for appearance to face the
C trial. Petitioners filed the present transfer petition under
  Section 406 CrPC seeking transfer of the complaint afore-
  mentioned from Gurgaon to the competent Court at
  Bangalore.

          Allowing the petition, the Court
D
       HELD:1.1. The only ceason the complainant claims
  jurisdiction for the Courts at Gurgaon is the fact that the
  complainant-respondent had issued the statutory notices
  relating to the dishonour of the cheque from Gurgaon.
E However, issue of a statutory notice cannot by itself confer
  jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of an
  offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
  Act. A unilateral act on the part of the complainant of
  issuing a notice from any part of the country would not
F vest the Court from within whose territorial limits the notice
  has been issued with the power to entertain a complaint.
  Presentation of the cheque at a place of the choice of the
  complainant or issue of a notice from any such place do
  not constitute ingredients of the offence under Section 138
G and cannot, therefore, confer jurisdiction upon the Court
  from where such acts are performed. Although the
  complaint does not claim jurisdiction for the Court at
  Gurgaon on the ground that the cheque was presented for
  collection there yet in the Counter affidavit, the respondent
  has tried to justify the filing of the complaint on that ground.
H
   SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES v. INDIABULLS                377
          FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
However, one cannot accept presentation of a cheque to          A
be a valid presentation for purposes of limitation within the
meaning of Section 138 unless the same is to the drawee
bank. On either ground, therefore, the Courts in Gurgaon
could not assume jurisdiction. [Paras 5] [379-C-H; 380-A-
~                                                               8
     1.2. Criminal Complalnt No.14089 .of 2009 titled
lndiabulls Financial Services Ltd. v. Sree Mahesh
Stationaries is transferred from the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court of
competent jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at      C
Bangalore who shall try the case himself ()r transfer the
same to any other Court competent to try the same. [Para
6] [380-C, D]

     Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra &         o
Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 delivered on 1st
August, 2014] and lshar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco
Ltd. 2001 (2) SCR 36: (2001) 3 sec 609 - followed.

     Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India    E
(P) Ltd. 2008 (17) SCR 487: (2009) 1 sec 720 - relied on.
                   Case Law Reference:
    2008 (17) SCR 487         relied on            Para 5
    2001 (2) SCR 36           followed             Para 5       F
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
(Criminal) No. 403 of 2013

    Petition U/S 406 of Criminal Procedure Code.
                                                                G
     8. Vijay Kumar for the Petitioners.

     Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                H
    378      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A        T.S. THAKUR, J. : 1. In this petition under Section 406
    of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek transfer of Criminal
    Complaint No.14089 of 2009 from the Court of Judicial
    Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court of
    competent jurisdiction at Bangalore.
B      2. The petitioner appears to have borrowed a loan of
  Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) for business purposes
  from the respondent-company. A cheque allegedly issued in
  partial repayment of the· loan amount and drawn on the
  Syndicate Bank, City Market Branch, Bangalore, when
C presented for encashment to ING Vysya Bank, Gurgaon
  appears to have been dishonoured resulting in the issue of
  statutory notices to the petitioners and eventual filing of a
  complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at
  Gurgaon under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act,
D 1881. The Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned
  the petitioners for appearance to face the trial. Petitioners have,
  in that backdrop, filed the present transfer petition seeking
  transfer of the complaint afore-mentioned from Gurgaon to the
  competent Court at Bangalore.                                  ,.
E
       3. Petitioners' case, as is evident from the averments
  made in the transfer petition, is that the Courts at Gurgaon have
  no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint specially when the
  cheque in question was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore
  and the offence, if any, was committed only at Bangalore. Issue
F of statutory notices to the petitioners from Gurgaon also does
  not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts concerned or justify
  continuance of the proceedings at Gurgaon.

        4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are
G inclined to allow this petition. We say so because in para 7 of
  the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant the reason
  for filing the complaint at Gurgaon has been set out, thus:

          "That the cause of action for filing the present complaint
          arose when the aforesaid cheque was issued to the
H
   SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES v. INDIABULLS                   379
    FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    complainant company when the intimation regarding A
    dishonour of the said cheque was received when the
    aforesaid legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
    was sent to the accused and on the failure of the accused
    to make payment despite being served with the said notice
    within the stipulated period of 15 days. The cause of action B
    is still subsisting and continuing. This Hon'ble Court has
    jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as the cause
    of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
    The complaint is within the period of limitation as per law."

      5. It is evident from the above that the only reason the      C
complainant claims jurisdiction for the Courts at Gurgaon is the
fact that the complainant-respondent had issued the statutory
notices relating to the dishonour of the cheque from Gurgaon.
We do not think that issue of a statutory notice can by itself
confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of an         D
offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.
We say so because in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National
Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 this Court
examined a similar question and clearly ruled that a unilateral
act on the part of the complainant of issuing a notice from any     E
part of the country would not vest the Court from within whose
territorial limits the notice has been issued with the power to
entertain a complaint. That judgment has been affirmed by a
three-judge bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod
 v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of          F
2009 delivered on 1st August, 2014. This Court has in that case
 held that presentation of the cheque at a place of the choice of
the complainant or issue of a notice from any such place do
 not constitute ingredients of the offence under Section 138 and
cannot, therefore, confer jurisdiction upon the Court from where    G
such acts are performed. Although the complaint does not claim
jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the
cheque was presented for collection there yet in the Counter
affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify the filing of the
complaint on that ground. Dashrath Rupsingh's case (supra),         H
    380      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   however, does not, as mentioned above, accept presentation
    of a cheque to be a valid presentation for purposes of limitation
    within the meaning of Section 138 unless the same is to the
    drawee bank. That is the view taken even in lshar Alloy Steels
    Ltd. v. J<1yaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609. On either
B   ground, therefore, the Courts in Gurgaon could not assume
    jurisdiction. Following the decisions in Dashrath Rupsingh's
    and lshar Alloy Steels cases (supra), we have no hesitation
    in allowing the petition and directing transfer of the complaint
    to the competent Court to entertain the same.
c        6. We accordingly allow this petition and transfer Criminal
    Complaint No.14Q89 of 2009 titled lndiabufls Financial
    Services Ltd. v. Sree Mahesh Stationaries from the Court of
    Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court
    of competent jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
D   Bangalore who shall try the case himself or transfer the same
    to any other Court competent to try the same. No costs.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                              Petition allawed.