CRL.M.C./520/2013 of PRIKNIT RETAILS LTD. & ANR. Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

$-13 «& 14

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ (i)CRL.M.C. 518/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.1689/2013+ (i)CRL.M.C. 518/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.1689/2013

versus

CRL.M.C. 520/2013 & CrLM.A. No.1693/2013

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRRespondentsThrough:Mr. Mukesh Gupta, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for respondent-StateMr. K.K. Gautam, Advocate forrespondent No.2Through:Mr. Mukesh Gupta, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for respondent-StateMr. K.K. Gautam, Advocate forrespondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER%11.09.2013

Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.3965/1/11 titled Sumitsu

Crl.M.C.518 & 520 of2013Page 1

Apparels v. Priknit Retails Ltd. & Others [in Crl.M.C. 518/2013]andCriminal ComplaintNo.3964/1/2011titled SumitsuApparels v. PriknitRetails Ltd. dOthers [in Crl.M.C. 520/2013], is sought in abovecaptionedtwopetitionsonthe groundof lackof territorialjurisdiction.Boththese petitionswere heardtogetherand are being disposedofby this common order.

At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for petitionersthatthe matter of lack of territorialjurisdictionin Complaintsunder Section138 of theNegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881 is pendingbeforethe Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court and so, the proceedingsbeforethe trialcourt ought to be stayed, as has been already done in another similarmatteri.e. Crl.M.C.No.3977/2013vide orderof V'December,2011 by aCoordinate Bench of this Court.

To urge the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction, learnedcounselfor petitionershad placed relianceupon decisionof the ApexCourt in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma 2013 (7) SCALE753. Referencewas also made to an order of 22°*^ February, 2012 inCrl.M.C.3977/2011 Vijay Ghai and Anr. v. BonMart InternationalLtd.of Division Bench of this Court wherein proceedings have been kept inabeyancetill the decisionon the questionof lack of territorialjurisdictionin Complaintsunder Section 138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881is finally determined by the Apex Court.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the instant Complaint (AnnexureP-I) and the decisions cited, I find that Apex Court in Krishna KumarVariar v. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC 485 has aptly observed that thequestion of lack territorial jurisdiction is an issue which depends upon,CrlMC.518&520of2013Page 2

facts of each case and upon being summoned, accused in case under>Section138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881 shouldapproachthetrial courtwith suitableapplicationraisingquestionof lack of territorialjurisdictionand shouldnot rush tothe HigherCourts.Pertinently,neitherin NishantAggarwal(supra) nor in Vijay Ghai (supra),the decisionofApex Court in KrishanKumar (supra) was broughtto the notice of theCourt. Therefore,findingmyselfin completeagreementwith the ratio ofthe ApexCourt'sdecisionin KrishanKumar (supra),boththesepetitionsare disposed of with liberty to petitionersto raise the plea of lack ofterritorialjurisdictionbefore the trial court by moving an applicationwithin period of four weeks' from today and if such an applicationisreceived by the trial court, it shall be decided by speaking orderreturning specific finding whether the trial court has the territorialjurisdictionto entertainthe Complaintsin question.Tillsucha decisionistaken by the trial court, personal appearanceof petitioners be not insistedupon provided they are duly representedbefore the trial court and subjectto their counsel not seeking adjournment.

Both these petitions and theapplications are disposed ofaccordingly.

SEPTEMBER 11,2013

(SUNIL GAUR)Judge

CrlMC.518&520of2013