AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No.15435 of 2010 dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and the summoning order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the Courts at Chandigarh do not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint filed by the respondent as the petitioners neither works for gain nor reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. The cheque was drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar (Andhra Pradesh) and the cheque was also dishonoured at Mahabubnagar (Andhra Pradesh). Since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts at Chandigarh, the complaint and the summoning order cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and another Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009(1) P.L.R., 525, judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Som Sugandh Industries Ltd. and another Vs. UOI and another, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 608, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Bansal and others, 2009(4) P.L.R., 28 (Delhi Section) and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Modi Vs. M/s Euro Developers Put. Ltd. and another, 2010(4) Criminal Court Cases, 868. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while referring to para 12 of the complaint, submits that the transaction for which the cheque was issued, was in fact received by the complainant at its Chandigarh office and the same was presented for encashment at Canara Bank, Sector 44, Chandigarh and the cheque was returned as dishonoured also at Chandigarh. He on this basis contends that the Courts at Chandigarh have the territorial jurisdiction and the trial Court has rightly summoned the petitioners on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, JT 1999 (7) SC, 558 and a judgment of this Court in CRM No.M-35032 of 2010 titled as H.S.Dhingra-Vs. M/s Amit Enterprises, Anandpuri Colony decided on 30.11.2010 (Annexure R-2). On this basis it is contended that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.;