//
archives

territorial jurisdiction

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Territorial Jurisdiction -where the cheque was dishonored – Bhaskaran judgment was overruled – 3 bench judges held that Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured. – The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof. and further held that – 1. this judgment will have only prospective pertinence, i.e. applicability to Complaints that may be filed after this pronouncement.- 2.where, post the summoning and appearance of the alleged Accused, the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will proceeding continue at that place.- 3.whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral statement, the Complaint will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. – 4.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 presently pending. – 5.All other Complaints (obviously including 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. – 6. 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.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 2009 Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod …..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents = 2014 – Aug – Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41801

Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Territorial Jurisdiction –where the cheque was dishonored – Bhaskaran judgment was overruled – 3 bench judges held that Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the  jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference  to  the  place where the cheque is dishonoured.- The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of … Continue reading

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, since the entire cause of action arose only at Nagercoil and no cause of action arose at Chennai conferring territorial jurisdiction to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The loan transaction was at branch of the respondent’s firm situated at Nagercoil. The cheques were presented at HDFC Bank, Nagercoil and notice alone has been issued from Chennai and as per the dictum of the Apex Court, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and hence, he prayed for withdrawal and transfer of the case pending before XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, to the competent territorial jurisdictional Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.But, here, not only notice has been issued from Chennai, the cheques were also presented at Chennai. As per the dictum of the apex Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 (K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran V.Balan and another), I am of the view that since the cheques were presented for collection at Chennai, XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Chennai has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In such circumstances, I am of the view that mere issuance of notice will not confer any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But, the presentation of cheque to the Bank is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence I am of the view that XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 14.Furthermore, already, P.W.1/respondent was examined, but however, he was not cross-examined by the accused, when the matter was posted for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Issuance of cheque is not disputed by him and dishonour of cheque has not been disputed by him. In such circumstances, to delay the proceedings, he come forward with this petition for transferring the case from XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Saidapet, Chennai, to any other competent Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, does not merit acceptance. Hence, the criminal original petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 15.In fine, The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Since the case is under Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning stage, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for earlier disposal of the case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA CRL.O.P.No.24689 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 P.Soman .. Petitioner/Accused ..Vs.. M/S.Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. Rep. by S.Saravanan No.9, Kamaraj Salai Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., to … Continue reading

1993 AIR SC 1361, it has been held that learned Sessions Judge’s powers under section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and anyone cannot avail two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the learned Sessions Judge under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. 5. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 676 of 2007 Mohd. Alim. ………. Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………. Respondents. Present : Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this criminal … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,859,662 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com