IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.8180/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI.B.S.PRAKASH, S/O SHIVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O A-5, SY.NO.59, S.K.R.COMPLEX, AKASHAYA NAGAR, P.C.PALYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 016. (BY SRI.MANJUNATH H.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.SOMASHEKAR, S/O LATE GOVINDIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, M/S. BALAJI HAIR STYLE, NEAR CANARA BANK, BELLUR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 418.
(VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2019 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) …PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2014 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, NAGAMANGALA, IN P.C.R. NO.107/2014 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Having regard the grounds urged in the petition, notice to respondent is dispensed with.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala in PCR No.107/2014 whereby the learned Magistrate has directed to return the complaint for presentation in proper Court within 30 days from the date of its order.
4. Petitioner herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the XIV ACMM, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru. Learned Magistrate, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 190 (SC) ordered to return the complaint/entire file (except original order sheet) for presentation in the proper Court within 30 days from the date of return by its order dated 20.10.2013. In the said order, the learned Magistrate has observed that even though cheque was drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Javaranahalli Branch, Bellur, yet the records before the learned Magistrate disclose that summons have already been served on the accused, he has appeared before the Court and obtained bail. Therefore, following the decision of Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod’s case supra, complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant to present before the same court having terriotorial jurisdiction.
5. The averments made in the private complaint disclose that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent on 15.11.2012. It was drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Javarnahalli Branch, B.G.Nagar, Javaranhalli, Bellur Post, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya Disrict. When it was presented for encashment at State Bank of India, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru, where the complainant/petitioner was maintaining his account, the same was dishonoured with a shara “Payment Stopped by Drawer” on 20.11.2012. As on the date of coming into force the amended provisions of Section 142-A w.e.f. 15.06.2015, the matter was pending before this Court. As such, the complaint filed by the petitioner has to be treated as pending.
6. The newly added Section 142-A of N.I.Act provides for transfer of pending cases. The section reads as under:
"142A. Validation for transfer of pending cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
(3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.”
7. In the instant case, cheque in question was delivered by the petitioner/complainant for collection through his account maintained in State Bank of India, Dooravaninagar Branch, Bengaluru. In such cases, by the force of sub-section (2) of Section 142, the branch where the payee or the holder in due course maintains account, is the place of trial of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and only the Court in Bengaluru gets jurisdiction to try the offence. Hence, the impugned order passed by the XIV ACMM is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2013 passed by the XIV ACMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to present the complaint before the XIV ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Sd/- JUDGE TL