- (1.) Nirav A. Doshi, proprietor of Feezol Industries, a concern at Nirmain Nagar, a locality of Bhavnagar, Gujarat has brought the above mentioned two petitions under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of two complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") bearing No. 6905 of 2010 dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P6 in Criminal Misc. No.M-24981 of 2010) and the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and the other complaint bearing No.2012 of 2010 (Annexure P8 in Criminal Misc. No.M- 28005 of 2011) alongwith subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending with another Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.
(2.) Despite the fact that the complaints sought to be quashed are pending in different courts, I propose to dispose of both the petitions together by way of this common order because the facts of the case are the same and the question raised by way of these petitions is also the same. It is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Chandigarh to entertain the complaints. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these petitions are as under : The complainant, Tapodhani Petrochemicals Private Limited (for short, "Tapodhani") is a concern at Panchkula, Haryana while the respondents are Nirav A. Doshi, and Feezol Industries (for short, "Nirav D. Doshi") are from Bhavnagar, Gujarat. There had been a deal between the two for buying technology. It was struck in July, 2007 and a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was given as the consultancy fee by Tapodhani to Nirav D. Doshi. Vide agreement dated 27.6.2008, the deal between the two was cancelled. To discharge his legal liability, Nirav D. Doshi had issued cheques for Rs. 10.00 lakhs which he had received under the agreement.
(3.) Cheques, Annexures C2 to C5 for Rs. 1.00 lakh each were issued payable on different dates drawn on ICICI Bank Limited. Tapodhani presented the said cheques for clearance through Canara Bank, Chandigarh, its banker. The cheques were, however, returned dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Claiming that notice was given thereafter, which was replied by Nirav D. Doshi taking a false plea, the complaints had been filed. The clause to plead that the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint was with the court at Chandigarh, Tapodhani made the following allegations in para No. 11 of the complaint in Criminal Misc. No.M-28005 of 2011 :- "11. That the cheques were issued by the accused at Chandigarh and were presented for payment at Chandigarh to discharge legal liability of accused towards the complainant and the payment qua the same was to be received by the complainant through its banker at Chandigarh, thus the Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to try the instant complaint." ;