THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8738 of 2012 Date:04.08.2014 Between:
Md. Ahmad Jeelani . Petitioner.
AND Mohammed Rafi and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8738 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash C.C.No.218/2012 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for alleged offences under Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The main objection of the advocate for petitioner is that simply because notice is issued from Vijayawada, the Court a t Vijayawada cannot have jurisdiction since all other transactions are at Visakhapatnam.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per K. Bhaskaran vs.
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
[1]
, Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated five places, where the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act can be filed and place of issue of notice is one among them and therefore, the objection of the petitioner is not tenable. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided in Indian Bank Association vs. Union of India
[2]
. He further submitted that the accused has purchased optical frames from the complainant from Vijayawada and therefore, the commercial transaction is also at Vijayawada and on that ground also objection of the petitioner is not tenable.
4. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition.
5. I n Bhaskaran’s case (1 Supra), Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the complaint can be filed at the following five places.
““(1) Drawing of the cheque,
(2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank,
(3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank,
(4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, and
(5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.”
According to this decision, the complaint can be filed from the place, where statutory notice was issued. He further submitted that as seen from the complaint averments, the transaction was at Vijayawada for which cheque in question was issued in discharge of the amount due under the said transaction. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by advocate for first respondent, the objection of the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction is not tenable. Further, a case cannot be quashed on the point of jurisdiction and if the Court, which took cognizance, has no jurisdiction, the complainant has to be directed to withdraw the complaint from that Court and present it in the proper Court, but here in this case, the commercial transaction was at Vijayawada and the statutory notice was issued from Vijayawada, therefore, the Court at Vijayawada has got jurisdiction and the objection of the petitioner is not tenable.
6. For these reasons, petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:04.08.2014 mrb [1]
(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510
[2]
(2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 590