Page 1

     REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.403 OF 2013

Sree Mahesh Stationaries & Anr. …Petitioners

Vs.

Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. In this petition under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C., the  

petitioners seek transfer of Criminal Complaint No.14089 of  

2009  from  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  

Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at  

Bangalore.  2. The  petitioner  appears  to  have  borrowed  a  loan  of  

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) for business purposes  

from the respondent-company.  A cheque allegedly issued in  

partial  repayment  of  the  loan  amount  and  drawn  on  the  

Syndicate  Bank,  City  Market  Branch,  Bangalore,  when  

1

Page 2

presented  for  encashment  to  ING  Vysya  Bank,  Gurgaon  

appears to have been dishonoured resulting in the issue of  

statutory notices to the petitioners and eventual filing of a  

complaint  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class  at  

Gurgaon under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments  

Act,  1881.  The  Magistrate  has  taken  cognizance  and  

summoned the petitioners for appearance to face the trial.  

Petitioners have, in that backdrop, filed the present transfer  

petition seeking transfer of the complaint afore-mentioned  

from Gurgaon to the competent Court at Bangalore.  3. Petitioners’  case,  as  is  evident  from  the  averments  

made in the transfer petition, is that the Courts at Gurgaon  

have  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  complaint  specially  

when the cheque in question was issued and dishonoured at  

Bangalore and the offence, if  any, was committed only at  

Bangalore.  Issue of statutory notices to the petitioners from  

Gurgaon also does not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts  

concerned  or  justify  continuance  of  the  proceedings  at  

Gurgaon. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are  

inclined to allow this petition. We say so because in para 7  

of  the  complaint  filed  by  the  respondent-complainant  the  

2

Page 3

reason for filing the complaint at Gurgaon has been set out,  

thus: “That  the  cause  of  action  for  filing  the  present   complaint  arose  when  the  aforesaid  cheque  was  issued  to  the  complainant  company  when  the  intimation  regarding  dishonour  of  the  said  cheque  was received when the aforesaid legal notice under   Section 138 of the N.I. Act was sent to the accused   and on the failure of the accused to make payment   despite being served with the said notice within the   stipulated period of 15 days.  The cause of action is   still  subsisting  and  continuing.  This  Hon’ble  Court   has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as   the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of   this Hon’ble Court. The complaint is within the period   of limitation as per law.”

5. It is evident from the above that the only reason the  

complainant claims jurisdiction for the Courts at Gurgaon is  

the  fact  that  the  complainant-respondent  had  issued  the  

statutory  notices  relating  to  the  dishonour  of  the  cheque  

from Gurgaon.  We do not  think that  issue of  a  statutory  

notice can by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take  

cognizance  of  an  offence  under  Section  138  of  The  

Negotiable Instruments Act.  We say so because in Harman  

Electronics  (P)  Ltd.  v.  National  Panasonic India  (P)  

Ltd. (2009)  1  SCC  720 this  Court  examined  a  similar  

question and clearly ruled that a unilateral act on the part of  

the complainant  of  issuing a  notice  from any part  of  the  

3

Page 4

country  would  not  vest  the  Court  from  within  whose  

territorial limits the notice has been issued with the power to  

entertain a complaint. That judgment has been affirmed by a  

three-judge  bench  of  this  Court  in  Dashrath  Rupsingh  

Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal  

No.2287 of 2009 delivered on 1st August,  2014. This  

Court has in that case held that presentation of the cheque  

at a place of  the choice of  the complainant or issue of a  

notice from any such place do not constitute ingredients of  

the offence under Section 138 and cannot, therefore, confer  

jurisdiction  upon  the  Court  from  where  such  acts  are  

performed.  Although  the  complaint  does  not  claim  

jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the  

cheque was presented for collection there yet in the Counter  

affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify the filing of the  

complaint  on  that  ground.  Dashrath  Rupsingh’s case  

(supra),  however,  does  not,  as  mentioned  above,  accept  

presentation  of  a  cheque  to  be  a  valid  presentation  for  

purposes  of  limitation  within  the  meaning of  Section  138  

unless the same is to the drawee bank.  That is the view  

taken even in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco  

4

Page 5

Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609. On either ground, therefore, the  

Courts in Gurgaon could not assume jurisdiction. Following  

the  decisions  in  Dashrath  Rupsingh’s  and  Ishar  Alloy  

Steels cases (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing the  

petition  and  directing  transfer  of  the  complaint  to  the  

competent Court to entertain the same. 6. We accordingly allow this petition and transfer Criminal  

Complaint  No.14089  of  2009  titled Indiabulls  Financial  

Services  Ltd.  v.  Sree  Mahesh  Stationaries  from  the  

Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana  

to the Court of competent jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan  

Magistrate at Bangalore who shall  try the case himself  or  

transfer the same to any other Court competent to try the  

same.  No costs.                                                                                       

………………………………….…..…J.         (T.S. THAKUR)

     …………………………..……………..J. New Delhi,  (C. NAGAPPAN) August 5, 2014

5