TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTION LTD.versusDATABYTE

                       [2014] 9 S.C.R. 526


A              TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTION LTD.
                                 v.
                           DATABYTE
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1911 of 2014)
                     SEPTEMBER 04, 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 presented for
  collection when drawee bank situated at other place - Held:
  A unilateral act of presentation of the cheque anywhere in the
  country or issue of a notice of dishonour from a place chosen
D by the complainant does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon
  the Court from within whose jurisdiction such presentation is
  made or notice issued - Thus, the High Court was justified
  in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the
  Metropolitan Magistrate.
E
      Cheques issued on different branches, outside
  Delhi, were presented for collection in the Delhi Bank. The
  cheque got dishonoured and the notice to the accused
  was issued from Delhi. Thereafter, the complaints u/s. 138
  of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were filed in
F Delhi. The Magistrate returned the complaints filed by the
  appellants. The High Court relying upon * /shar Alloy
  Steels Ltd. 's case that the mere presentation of cheques
  before banks in Delhi when the drawee bank is situated
  outside Delhi will not confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi
G courts nor will the issue of a notice of dishonour from
  Delhi would do so, upheld the order passed by the
  Magistrate. Hence, the instant appeal.

        Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H                               526
  TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTION LTD. v. DATABYTE                527


    HELD: The view in * lshar Alloy Steels Ltd. 's case is      A
unexceptionable having regard to the decision of this
Court in **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case. This Court
has in that case held that a unilateral act of presentation
of the cheque anywhere in the country or issue of a
notice of dishonour from a place chosen by the                  B
complainant does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon
the Court from within whose jurisdiction such
presentation is made or notice issued. Following the view
taken by this Court in Dashrath's case there is no
hesitation in holding that.the High Court was justified in      c
refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate. [Para 3] [528-G, H; 529-A-C]

     */shar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswa/s Neco Ltd. 2001 (2)
 SCR 36 : (2001) 3 SCC 609; **Dashrath Rvpsingh Rathod
v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied     D
on.

                    Case Law Reference:
    2001 (2) SCR 36           Relied on          Para 3
                                                                E
    (2014) 9 SCALE 97         Relied on          Para 3

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1911 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2010 of the Ld.     F
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in CRL. M.C. No. 282 of
2010.                   .

                              WITH

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1912 and 1913 of 2014.                     G

    Vinay Kumar Shailendra, (In Person), Subhro Sanyal,\
Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C.
Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish
    528        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra, Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant.

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

B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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

       2. These three appeals arise out of an order dated 1st
  February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Bombay whereby
C Criminal M.C. Nos. 281 of 2010, 282 of 2010 and 296 of 2010
  filed by the appellants have been dismissed and the orders
  passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate returning the complaints
  filed by the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
  Instrument Act, 1881 for presentation before the competent
D Court upheld.

       3. It is common ground that the cheques in all the three
  cases had been issued on different branches namely, Bank of
  India, Ruby Park and ICICI Bank, Kolkata and Punjab National
E Bank, Chapraula, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. which are outside
  Delhi. Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were all the
  same filed in Delhi because the cheques had been deposited
  by the complainants in their Delhi bank accounts for collection
  and because notice of dishonour was issued to the accused
F persons from Delhi. Relying upon the decision of this Court in
  /shar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC
                                                 •
  609 the High Court held that mere presentation of cheques
  before banks in Delhi when the drawee bank is situated
  outside Delhi will not confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi courts
G nor will the issue of a notice of dishonour from Delhi would do
  so. That view, in our opinion, is unexceptionable having regard
  to the decision of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v.
  State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97. This
  Court has in that case examined at length the principles
H
   TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTION LTD. v. DATABYTE                  529
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
underlying Section 138 and held that a unilateral act of            A
presentation of the cheque anywhere in the country or issue of
a notice of dishonour from a place chosen by the complainant
does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court from within
whose jurisdiction such presentation is made or notice issued.
Following the view taken by this Court in Dashrath's case           B
(supra) we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was
justified in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate. These appeals accordingly fail and are
hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any no
orders as to costs.                                                 c
Nidhi jain                                     Appeals dismissed.