At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 177 of 2015 sought permission to delete respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on the ground that they are wrongly arraigned as respondents and they were not parties before the Lower Appellate Court. Permission to delete said respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 insofar as Criminal Revision Application No. 177 of 2015 is concerned, is granted.
2. The facts are common and the issue is identical in all the captioned Revision Applications. In all the applications, challenge is directed against similar oder dated 27.03.2015 passed by learned 3rd Page 1 of 3 R/CR.RA/180/2015 ORDER Additional Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Surat, in different cases, whereby the learned Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1981 on the ground that he did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said view is taken by relying on the decision in Dashtrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. [(2014) 9 SCC 129] on the footing that the Drawee Bank was not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave for the applicants in Revision Application Nos. 180 of 2015 to 182 of 2015 and learned advocate for the applicant in Revision Application No.177 of 2015 assailed the impugned order and submitted that the cheque/s were presented for realizing to the Bank of Baroda, Surat Branch/City Union Bank Limited, Surat Branch by the applicant-complainant. The cheque/s which were presented, thereafter were forwarded to the Service Branch of Axis Bank functional at Surat for clearance of the cheque/s. The cheque/s were dishonored. It was submitted that since the cheque/s were dishonored at Surat, they being presented to the Service Branch of Axis Bank, the test for determining the territorial jurisdiction as laid down in the case of Dashtrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), stands satisfied. On the contrary to attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Surat, it was submitted that the learned Judge in returning the complaint, erred and misinterpreted the decision in Dashtrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra).
submitted that in all the cases, the parties have settled their disputes even before passing the impugned order. A copy of the settlement is produced on record of the Revision Applications.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the bouncing of cheque/s, has been upon their forwarding to Service Branch of Axis Bank at Surat, the matters require consideration.
6. RULE, returnable on 7th July, 2015. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. P. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State.
7. There shall be interim relief in terms of paragraph 19(d) of the Memorandum of Revision Applications in each case.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandrashekhar Page 3 of 3