Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10786/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10786 of
2010
=========================================================
THE
KOXHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY & 8 -
Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRADIP J PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 9.MR DA ZALA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 9.
MR MR
MENGDEY, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE NOT
RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 13/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioners
are the original accused in a cheque bouncing complaint, bearing
Criminal Case No. 12527 of 2009, filed before the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate(NI Act), Ahmedabad. Petitioners opposed the
said complaint only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the
said Court.
2. It
is the case of the petitioners that the complainant-Bank, having
deposited a cheque in Ahmedabad, no other cause of action has arisen
in Ahmedabad. It is pointed out that the accused reside in Kerala,
they are involved in the business at Kerala, the loan transactions
and all other transactions have taken place at Kerala and the cheque
in question was also issued at Kerala. These facts are not seriously
disputed by the complainant-Bank.
3. In
similar circumstances, this Court had passed following order in the
case of Baheti Automobiles Thru Kamal Kishore F Baheti &
Anoter Vs. State of Gujarat & Another , dated
05.08.2010, rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2974 of
2010:
Heard
learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition.
Petitioners
are original accused in a cheque bouncing complaint at Annexure-A
being Criminal Case No.1215 of 2008 pending before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad filed by respondent No.2 ICICI
Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate
at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. The
compliant has been filed before a wrong Court.
Counsel
for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision reported in AIR
2009 SC 1168 between M/s.Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. &
Anr. V/s. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. contended that no
part of the cause of action having been arisen between the limits of
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, such a compliant
cannot be entertained at Ahmedabad.
Counsel
for the complainant opposed the petition contending that the cheque
was presented at the branch of the complainant Bank at Ahmedabad and
notice of cheque bouncing was also issued from Ahmedabad. He,
however, agreed that the transaction between the petitioners and the
complainant had taken place at Akola (Nagpur), the cheque was also
issued at there and all other transactions had taken place at Akola.
Under
the circumstances, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of
M/s.Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr.(supra), mere
presenting the cheque at Ahmedabad and issuance of notice of cheque
bouncing would not give jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad to try the said case.
In
the result, by allowing this petition, learned Magistrate shall in
terms of provisions contend under Section 201 of Cr.P.C. return the
complaint to the original complainant for presentation before the
proper Court.
With
above direction, petition is disposed of.
4. In
above view of the matter, I have not examined any other ground,
leaving it open to the parties to raise the same, before the
appropriate forum.
5. In
the result this petition is allowed, by DIRECTING the
learned MAGISTRATE to take steps, as per SECTION
201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for presentation of
the complaint before the appropriate Court.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top