Jurisdiction in 138nia

Suppose accused is living in X city and firm is in  Y city and the cheque was presented  at Z place which bounced .Can complainant file a complaint at Z place as the cheque was bounced. Any citation on this point

Thanx

Please read the attached Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court which deals with the issue raised in your querry.

Sir,

   I am unable to open this file .Please resend it or mention the judgement no & year

Thanx

It is in thematter of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd  and anothers  Vs National Panasonic India Ltd decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No 2021 of 2008 decided on 12-12-2008. PDF is however attached again or write your email id so that i can send it directly to you.

This citation has been interpreted by many high courts particularly Bombay, so it depends whether you are accused or complainant.

This citation has been interpreted by many high courts particularly Bombay, so it depends whether you are accused or complainant.

Sir,

Thanx 4 the citation.However I am for the complainant and I want to file the complaint  at a place where the cheque was bounced .Accused is living at another place and complainant resides at some other place.Whether my complaint is maintaiable at the place where the cheque was bounced.someone told me that  in a recent SC judgement it has been held that complaint can not be filed at a place where the cheque bounced.Is it true

Read it in detail, you would get the idea where all the same can be presented.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Dear Ms Anuradha Goyal

I am not an Xpert in Criminal Law and deals with tax matters.  However what ever i have gained in criminal law is from my personal experience.  Let Xperts in criminal opine.  Mr Shonee is right, the judgment read in detail opens many avenues. More-over as Mr JSDN has earlier stated there could be adverse opinion of the Jurisdictional High Court.  Better you consult a local lawyer and decide your future course of action.

Thanks and regards

Hermann case and subsquent case laws on jurisdiction are misinterpreted by both complainant and accused.

1) Where cheque was bounced since you got intimation from your bank while the accused bank is different.As per Hermann case cause of action will also arise at the bank of accused where cheque was bounced.

2) Another imortant matter is issure of notice., as per HERMANN case section b) and c) together will give jurisdiction and not one.

HIGHER COURT CITATIONS.
1) People get misguided by particular words or sentences in higher court citation and feel than like a computer or math problem it should be applicable to all. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

2) Most important is that if a point is not raised in lower court or not denied specifically it is presumed to be admission and at higher courts it can not be reopened.

3) So such citations will not be applicable in all cases and particularly in those cases where matter is thoroughly agitated in lower court.