Page 1

      REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.197 / 2012

M/s Apex Distributors & Anr. …Petitioners

Versus

M/s Timex Group India 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.3960 of  

2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,  

1881  pending  before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  

House Court at New Delhi to the Court competent to try the  

same at  Pondicherry.  The  cheque  in  question  appears  to  

have been issued on Vyasya Bank Ltd., Vellore, Tamil Nadu.  

When presented for encashment the same was dishonoured,  

whereupon,  the  respondent  got  notices  issued  to  the  

1

Page 2

petitioners asking them to pay the cheque amount within  

the statutory  period  of  fifteen  days  from the date  of  the  

receipt of the said notices. Failure of the petitioners to make  

the payment led to the filing of criminal complaint No.3960  

of 2008 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House,  

New Delhi  in which the Court took cognizance and issued  

summons to the petitioners. The complaint, it is noteworthy,  

justified the institution of the case in Delhi on the solitary  

ground that the statutory notices demanding payment of the  

cheque  amount  had  been  issued  to  the  petitioners  from  

Delhi. In para 13 of the complaint, the complainant said:   

“That  the  cause  of  action  has  arisen  within  the   jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in as much as the   notice of demand for the Cheque amount was issued   to  all  the  Accused  from  Delhi.   Therefore,  this   Hon’ble Court  has the jurisdiction to entertain,  try   and decide the present complaint.”

2. The petitioners’ case, in the present transfer petition, is  

that the cheque in question was not in discharge of any debt  

or liability but had been given to the respondent-company  

by way of security. Dishonour of any such cheque was not,  

according  to  the  petitioners,  an  offence  punishable  under  

Section  138  of  the  Act  aforementioned.  That  apart,  the  

2

Page 3

petitioners claim that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction  

to  entertain  the  complaint.  Simply  because  the  statutory  

notices  were  issued to  the  petitioners  from Delhi  did  not  

clothe the Courts in Delhi to take cognizance of the offence  

assuming  that  the  same  had  been  committed.  Multiple  

ailments of Petitioner No.2 are also urged as a ground for  

transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Pondicherry. 3. The  only  question  that  primarily  arises  for  our  

consideration  is  whether  the  Courts  in  Delhi  had  the  

jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  complaint  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case especially when issue of statutory  

notices  was  the  only  reason  urged  by  the  respondent-

complainant  for  filing  a  complaint  in  Delhi.  Issue  of  a  

statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amount  

is, in our opinion, not sufficient to vest the Delhi Courts with  

the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the case.  

We say so on the authority of the decision of this Court in  

Harman  Electronics  (P)  Ltd.  v.  National  Panasonic  

India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this aspect was  

examined  at  length.  This  Court  ruled  that  issue  of  a  

statutory  notice  cannot  constitute  a  valid  ground  for  

3

Page 4

conferring  jurisdiction  upon  the  Court  concerned  to  take  

cognizance of an offence under Section 138. That position  

has  been  reiterated  in  a  recent  decision  delivered  on  1st  

August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod  

v.  State  of  Maharashtra  &  Anr. Criminal  Appeal  

No.2287 of 2009. In  Dashrath Rupsingh’s case (supra)  

this Court has overruled the earlier decision delivered by a  

two-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  K.  Bhaskaran  v.  

Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.  (1999) 7  SCC 510  

upon  which  the  respondent  sought  to  place  reliance  in  

support of their contention that Delhi Court could exercise  

jurisdiction based on the fact that notice of demand of the  

cheque amount was issued from Delhi.  4. In the circumstances and keeping in view the admitted  

factual position that the cheque in question was dishonoured  

at Vellore where the bank on which it was drawn is located,  

we  see  no  reason  why  the  complaint  filed  by  the  

respondents should not be transferred to Vellore for further  

proceedings. The fact that petitioner No.2 is suffering from  

several medical problems will also, in our opinion, be taken  

care by the transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Vellore.  

4

Page 5

5. We accordingly  allow this petition  and direct  transfer  

Criminal  Complaint  No.3960  of  2008  titled  M/s  Timex  

Group India Ltd.  v. M/s Apex Distributers & Anr. from  

Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts in New Delhi  

to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vellore 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