$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2885/2011
% Judgment delivered on:29th September,2011
ROYCE KIZHANKOODAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Venkat Subramaniam
and Mr. Zulfiker Ali, Adv.
versus
GURIND SYSTEMS P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Hemant Malhotra with
Mr. Sharad Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the
summons issued by ld. MM in CC No.3913 of 2011 under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has challenged the very
factum of complaint and summons dated 06.06.2011 on the
ground of jurisdiction. I have perused the complaint filed
CRL.M.C. 2885/2011 Page 1 of 4
against the petitioner.
3. Para 13 of the complaint is as under :
“13. That the aforesaid legal notice of demand
stands duly served upon the accused persons as
on 09/04/2011 as per the A.D.Card received back.
But the accused persons have failed to make the
necessary payment in lieu of the necessary
cheques despite the lapse of the statutory period
of 15 days. Rather, they have sent a false and
frivolous reply dated 13.04.2011 to the above
notice denying their liability and making false
accusations against the complainant company.”
4. The cheque deposited by respondent at Delhi. The
legal notice has also been sent from Delhi.
5. On this issue I have already given my opinion in Crl
Rev. P.170/2010 in GE Capital Transportation Financial
Services Ltd vs. Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011.
Keeping in view the „doctrine of precedent‟, the judgment
delivered by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in
K.Bhashkaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan & Anr (1999) 7
SCC 510 decided on 29.09.1999 is still binding till date. The
CRL.M.C. 2885/2011 Page 2 of 4
Supreme Court in case of K.Bhaskaran (supra) has held that
the Court has the jurisdiction over a place from where legal
notice is issued to the customer demanding payment of the
dishonoured cheque under Section 138 of NI Act, apart from
places where other components of offence has taken place
under Section 138 NI Act :-
i) drawing of the cheque;
ii) presentation of the cheques to the
bank;
iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the
drawee bank;
iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer
of the cheque demanding payment of the
cheques amount;
6. In the present case two components are fulfilled
(i) Cheque presented at Delhi
(ii) Legal notice issued from Delhi.
7. In view of the judgment delivered on 09.09.2011 in the
above stated case, I dismiss CRL.M.C. 2885/2011.
8. No order as to costs.
CRL.M.C. 2885/2011 Page 3 of 4
Crl.M.A.10244/2011 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in CRL.M.C. 2885/2011, this
application is dismissed as infructous.
SURESH KAIT, J
September 29, 2011
Vld
CRL.M.C. 2885/2011 Page 4 of 4