Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18965 = 2024(2) L.A.R. 170
Decided on: 21.02.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv., Ms. Rani Mishra, AOR, Mr. Narayan Venkatraman Iyer, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv., Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv., Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai -- Yet the cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar -- Just because the respondent/ complainant who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai -- Project site is at Maharashtra -- Complaint transferred to Mumbai.
(Para 4-8)
ORDER
Heard Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (opposite party in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). Also heard Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant).
2. From the submission of the learned counsel, it is apparent that the registered office of the Company is at Mumbai. In the notice sent on 28.05.2023 by the respondent, it is clearly mentioned that the Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai. Yet the concerned cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act being initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent however submit that the respondent is a permanent resident of Darbhanga and also has business interest in Bihar. Therefore placing reliance on the ratio in Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 92 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15456, the complainant’s counsel would contend that the present transfer petition should not be entertained until evidence is recorded in the trial court.
4. The rival submissions of the parties are considered. It is seen that the registered office of the respondent Company is in Mumbai and the notice also indicates the said fact. Just because the respondent who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai. It is also to be noted that in the complaint itself, it is mentioned that the project site is at Sirol Shahpur, Maharashtra.
5. In the above circumstances, we are quite convinced that the respondent has attempted to illegally harass the petitioner, by filing the complaint in Darbhanga, Bihar.
6. Accordingly, we allow the transfer petition. The Complaint Case No. 840 of 2023 titled as “M/s. Global Construction v. M/s. Caarneeval Developers & Ors.“, pending before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar is directed to be transferred to the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malad, Mumbai.
7. Records of the case would be immediately transferred to the transferee court.
8. The observation in the present order will have no bearing on the merit of the decision to be taken in the Section 138 proceedings.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Petition allowed.
********