Rajneesh Singhal v. M/S Dig Vijay Seeds Pvt. Ltd

PRATIBHA RANI, J

AUGUST 22, 2012 "dc"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.08.2012 Pronounced on : 22.08.2012 + CRL.M.C. 1688/2011 RAJNEESH SINGHAL ……..Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajiv K.Garg, Advocate. versus M/S. DIG VIJAY SEEDS PVT. LTD. …..Respondent Through: Mr.P.K.Jha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.3193/1 titled M/s. Dig Vijay Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajneesh Singhal and the summoning order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned M.M. in the said complaint. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order mainly on the ground that the Courts at Delhi lack the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The second ground, on which quashing has been sought, is that the cheque in question was given as a security in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2010 and after communicating to the complainant vide letter dated 06.10.2010 that the MoU has become redundant, the complainant was asked to return the cheque. However, he dishonestly presented the same with his banker which was dishonoured. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent which entered appearance through its counsel. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records as well as the impugned order. I have also perused the brief synopsis filed by the parties. 5. Perusal of the complaint dated 30.11.2010, which is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the present petition, reveals that after referring to the details of the transaction between the parties and execution of Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2010, to show that the Courts at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction, necessary averments were made in paragraph-18 of the complaint as under:- "18. That the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties at the head office of the complainant and the cheque in dispute was issued by the accused at the office of the complainant to the complainant at Delhi and the same was placed for encashment through its account at Syndicate Bank, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi and later on dishonoured by the accused bank of the accused. The complainant had its head office at 9(II) Sagar Apartment, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi which is situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi and the Hon"ble Court of Police Station Tilak Marg, Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain, try and punish the accused as per law." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the MoU dated 27.01.2010 executed between the parties which shows that the stamp paper was purchased from Uttrakhand; the petitioner is resident of Uttrakhand; the cheque in question was drawn on Bank of Baroda at Dehradun. Not only that, the land transacted between the parties is also situated in Uttrakhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the last paragraph of the MoU dated 27.01.2010 which reads as under:- "In WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set their respective hands to this agreement on the date, month and the year first mentioned above at Dehradun." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the alleged notice is also addressed to the petitioner at Dehradun. It has been urged that mere sending of notice from Delhi or office of the complainant/respondent being situated at Delhi is not sufficient to confer the territorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi, hence the complaint as well as the summoning order may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) III(2011) BC 180 Ramaswamy S. Iyengar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (ii) 2011(6) AD (Delhi) 143 Grandlay Electricals (India) vs. ESS ESS Enterprises & Ors. (iii) 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 361 Mahika Enterprises & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (iv) 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 185 Religare Finve