IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9046/2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT "GODREJ ONE", 3RD FLOOR PIROJSHNAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 079 AND ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.19, P&T 1ST CROSS, R.T. NAGARAR BENGALURU – 560 032.
PRESENTLY OFFICE AT NO.497, 5TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, V.V. NAGAR R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032 REPRESNETED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SHESHAGIRI PAI.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. AMULYA FEEDS LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. P. LAKSHMI NARAYANA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHREUVUKOMUPALEM ONGOLE TALUK, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH – 523 272.
2. DR. P. LAKSHMI NARAYANA MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. AMULYA FEEDS LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHREVUKOMUPALEM ONGOLE TALUK, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH – 523 272.
3. SMT. PALLAPOTHU INDIRA W/O DR. P. LAKSHMI NARAYAN AGE: MAJOR 37-1-406(10-3, 1ST LINE, BHAGYANAGAR, ONGOLE - 523 001.
... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN UN NUMBERED PCR DATED:28.07.2017 AND DIRECT LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is before this Court challenging order dated 28.07.2017 passed by XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in an un-
numbered PCR and seeks for a direction to learned Magistrate to register said complaint.
2. Petitioner who filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against respondents-accused has alleged that cheque issued by the respondents for discharge of debts when presented, has been returned for want of sufficient funds and thereby, accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). It is also alleged that complainant had complied with all statutory requirement including issuance of notice and on account of respondents – accused not complying with demand made under legal notice and cheque amount not having been paid and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Said complaint came to be presented before II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, on the ground accused persons were residents of Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, and thereby contending said Magistrate had jurisdiction. In the light of amendment having been brought to the NI Act viz., Section 142A having been inserted by Act No.26/2015, said complaint was ordered to be returned by the jurisdictional Magistrate viz., II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh. As such, petitioner - complainant presented said complaint before the XLII ACMM, Bengaluru, on 08.11.2016. However, learned Magistrate, Bengaluru has opined that complainant has not properly assisted the Court viz., Court at Ongole, to pass orders in the case as provided under the amended Act and has directed the complainant to obtain suitable order of transfer of case from said Court. It has been opined by the learned Magistrate at Bengaluru, that complainant has to take steps as per NI Act to seek transfer of case from the said Court through proper channel. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.11.2017 reads:
“That apart, no provisions of law permit the complainant to present the complaint 2nd time or to re-present. The order for return made by the learned 2nd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ongole, Andrapradesh, is not appears to be in accordance with the amendment provisions of N.I.Act. Because, in the said Act, specifically made it clear that, the case has to be transfer to the jurisdictional Court. It is worth to note that if any concoction of manipulation is made in the court records by the complainant, it will create problem in future for disposal of the case.
It appears that the complainant has not properly assisted the Court to pass the order for transfer of the case as provided in the amended Act. Under these circumstances in the considered opinion of this court, the complainant has to get the order of transfer of the case, from the Court where it was pending, as provided under amended provisions of N.I.Act, to the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented for encashment.
Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this court, the complainant has to take steps as per Negotiable Instrument Amendment Act, 2015 to transfer the case to this Court through proper channel.”
3. When the Order of transfer came to be passed by the Ongole, (Andhra Pradesh) Magistrate transferring the proceedings, transferee Court cannot sit in judgment over the order of the transferor Court. If at all if there is any illegality, it is for the accused to take such steps as he/they may be advised. In view of the amendment brought to NI Act and Section 142A having been inserted and the JMFC at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh having returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented before jurisdictional Magistrate for trial of the case, same is to be tried by the transferee Court.
4. A perusal of the averments made in the complaint at para-6 would clearly indicate that complainant has presented cheques through its banker, viz., State Bank of India, Mysuru Road Branch, Bengaluru-560 026, and as such, clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 142 would be applicable and transferor Court i.e., Magistrate at Ongole (Andhra Pradesh) has rightly returned the complaint for being presented before the jurisdictional Court viz., CMM Court, Bengaluru. Hence impugned Order cannot be sustained.
5. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed.
Order dated 28.07.2017 passed in respect of complainant is hereby set-aside and XLII ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to take said complaint on record and proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. All contentions of both parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on merits.
SD/- JUDGE *sp