Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771  OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013]

SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS. …..Appellants

Vs.  

METSO MINERAL  (INDIA) PVT.LTD.          …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 This Appeal  assails  the Order  of  the learned Single  Judge of  the  

High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  holding  that  since  the  notice  as  

contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for  

short,  ‘the  NI  Act’),  had  been  dispatched  from Gurgaon,  Haryana  and  

additionally,  a  response  thereto  was  dispatched  to  and  received  at  

Gurgaon, Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide  

the Complaint.  In the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been  

mentioned and decisions of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran  

Vaidhyan  Balan  (1999)  7  SCC  510  and  Harman  Electronics  Private

Page 2

Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720  

have  been  analysed  and  discussed.    We need not  dilate  on  this  issue  

beyond mentioning and applying the recent decision dated 01.08.2014 in  

Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 titled  Dashrath Rupsingh  Rathod v.  

State  of  Maharasthra.    In  view  of  the  deliberations  in  Dashrath  

Rupsingh,  the  Appeal  is  allowed.     It  is  no  longer  arguable  that  the  

issuance of the notice has relevance to the question of criminal territorial  

jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act.    In the case in hand, the  

dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant’s Bank, namely, Axis  

Bank,  Bangalore.   Subsequently,  on  presentation  of  the  cheques  for  

encashment  by  the  Respondent  through  its  Bankers,  namely,  Standard  

Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured.    It is interesting to  

note, even though it may not be relevant for the present considerations,  

that the Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of money in New Delhi,  

repeatedly reiterating that the cause of action arose solely and squarely in  

New Delhi.

3 It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Special  

Court), District Gurgaon, Haryana, on 14.6.2010 issued Summons to the  

Appellant.    The  Appellant  thereupon  approached  the  High  Court  of  

Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which passed the impugned order.   On  

23.9.2013,  this  Court  issued  notice  and  also  ordered  that  proceedings  

2

Page 3

before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.   It is evident, therefore, that  

evidence, post-summoning, has not been recorded.

4 It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at  

Gurgaon  do  not  possess  territorial  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  present  

proceedings  under  Section  138  of  the  NI  Act  solely  because,  on  the  

instructions of the Respondent,  a legal  notice of demand has emanated  

from that city.  The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent  

for  refilling  in  the  appropriate  Court  at  Bangalore,  Karnataka.    As  

mentioned  in  Dashrath  Rupsingh,  if  the  Complaint  is  re-filed  in  the  

appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have  

been  filed  within  limitation.   The  interim  orders  stand  recalled,  

accordingly.

5 The parties shall bear their respective costs.

                           .......................................................J. [T.S. THAKUR]

                                               .......................................................J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

New Delhi;   August 20, 2014.

3