SUKUversusJAGDISH & ANR.

                        [2014) 9 S.C.R. 522


A                               SUKU
                                  v.
                         JAGDISH & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1917 of 2014)
                       SEPTEMBER 4, 2014
B
            [T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
                      C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

        Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Complaint
C under, for dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction upon
  the courts to take cognizance where cheque was presented
  or notice issued - Held: Presentation of a cheque by the
  complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him
  to the accused demanding' payment of the cheque amount
D not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon tfle
  courts - Thus, order passed by the High Court that tf:le
  presentation of the cheque to a bank in Kera/a would n9t by
  itself confer jurisdiction on the Kera/a Court, does not call for
  interference.
E
        The question which arose for consideration before
  this Court was whether the presentation of cheque by
  the complainant in a bank, having branch in Kerala
  conferred jurisdiction upon the courts at Kerala to
  entertain a complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable
F Instruments Act, 1881 and try the aecused persons for the
  offence when the cheque was issued by the respondent
  on the bank, having branch in Karnataka.
       The Magistrate held that the court at Kerala had no
G territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The High
 - Court relying upon the decision of this Court in *Harman
   Electronics Private Limited that the issue of notice to the
   drawer of the cheque does not by itself give rise to a
   cause of action to confer jurisdiction upon the courts to
H                             522
                  SUKU v. JAGDISH                       523


take cognizance, held that the presentation of the cheque       A
to a bank in Kerala would not by itself confer jurisdiction
on the Kerala Court.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: The view taken by the Magistrate based as it         B
is on the decision of this Court in *Harman Electronics
Private Limited does not, call for any interference by this
Court, in the light o·f the pronouncement of this Court in
** Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod where this Court has held
that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a           C
place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the
accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are
not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon
the courts where such cheque was presented or notice
issued. The order passed by the High Court is upheld.           D
[Para 4] [525-B-D]

    *Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National
Panasonic India Private Limited 2008 (17) SCR 487: (2009)
1 SCC 720; **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of               E
Maharashtra and Anr. (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - referred to.

                    Case Law Reference :
    2008 (17) SCR 487        Referred to           Para 3, 4
    (2014) 9 SCALE 97        Relied on             Para 4       F.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1917  of
          2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2011 in Crl.
M.C. No. 514 of 2011 of the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam.   G

                              WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 1918 of 2014.
                                                                H
    524        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.~.


A        Vinay Kumar Shailendra, (In Person), Subhro Sanyal,
    Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu,'E.C.
    Agrawal, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish
    Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra, Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant.

B        Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venketesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam
    Jain, Vaishali R., Shailender Bhardwaj, Subramonium Prasad,
    Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c         T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th June,
  2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  whereby the High Court has held that the presentation of a
  cheque by the complainant in a bank at Krishnapuram,
D Kayamkulam, Kerala did not confer jurisdiction upon Courts at
  Kayamkulam to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the
  Negotiable Instruments Act and try the accused persons for the
  offence.

E        3. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question was
    issued by the respondent on Syndicate Bank, Gokaran branch
    in Karnataka which was presented for collection by the
    complainant at Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam, Kerala but
    dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant then
 F filed complaint at Kayamkulam in the State of Kerala which
    were returned by the Magistrate to be filed before the proper
    Court as the Court at Kayamkulam, Kerala, had no territorial
    jurisdiction to entertain the same. The matter was taken up
    before the High Court by the complainants in Crl. M.C. Nos.514
 G of 2011 and 1653 of 2011 which the High Court has dismissed
    by the impugned order holding that the presentation of the
    cheque to a Bank in Kerala would not by itself confer jurisdiction
    upon the Kerala Court. The High Court has in support of that
    view relied upon the decision of this Court in Harman
. H Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic
              SUKU v. JAGDISH [T.S. THAKUR, J.]                  525


 India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this Court held            A
 that the issue of notice to the drawer of the cheque does not
 by itself give rise to a cause cif action to confer jurisdiction upon
 the Court to take cognizance.

      4. The view taken by the Magistrate based as it is on the          8
 decision of this_ Court in Harman'.s_case (supra) does not, in
 our opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light
 of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh
 Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE
 97 where this Court has examined the issue at some length and
 held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at Ii place       C
 of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused
 demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by
 themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such
 cheque was presented or notice issued. Following the decision
 in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case (supra), we affirm the               D
 order passed by the High Court.

       5. These appeals accordingly fail and are, hereby,
·dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to
  costs.                                                                 E
 Nidhi Jain                                        Appeals dismissed.