- (1.) The petitioner who has been facing his prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has moved this Court for quashing of the said proceedings on the ground the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, before whom the proceeding is pending is lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) Now, having regards to the statement of facts made in the petitioner of complaint together with those contained in the demand notice, the admitted position is as follows; (a) The complainant has his registered office at Calcutta. The Proprietorship concern of the accused situated at Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. (b) To liquidate legally enforceable existing debt and liability which the accused owe to the complainant issued an account payee cheque drawn on UCO Bank, Peenya Industrial Area Branch in favour of the complainant company. (c) The complainant deposited the said cheque to its banker Axis Bank, Peenya Extension Counter at Bangalore for easy and rapid clearance and encashment of the same within the validity of the said cheque, but the said cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks "fund insufficient". (d) A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was sent to the accused at his office address from Kolkata through the learned advocate of the complainant company. (e) The said notice was duly delivered and received by the accused on 6th of September, 2008. (f) It appears from the demand notice which is an annexure to this criminal revision that the said notice was sent to the accused at his office address at Peenya, Bangalore and same was served upon him there.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been heavily placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd., 2009 1 SCC(Cri) 610 and it is submitted since the Court before whom the impugned proceeding is pending is lacking of territorial jurisdiction is not legally empowered to proceed with the same. On the other hand, on behalf of the complainant/opposite party reliance have been placed on the following decisions, viz., (i) K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999 7 SCC 510, (ii) Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008 2 SCC 305, (iii) Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narasimahaiah, 2008 AIR(SC) 1797, (iv) Smt. Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed, 2009 AIR(SC) 1355, (v) Ramish Francis Toppo v. Violet Francis Toppo, 1989 AIR(Cal) 128, (vi) Jaisri Shau v. Rajdewan Dubey and Ors., 1982 AIR(SC) 83, (vii) Syed Mohideen v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 1986 AIR(Mad) 188. It has been contended the Learned Court before whom the impugned proceeding is pending has necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence.;