Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Ashok Ranpura, filed four criminal writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting his applications for returning the complaints filed by Respondent No.1, Tube Corporation, to be presented before the court where the drawee bank is situated. The four complaints, being Criminal Case Nos.2391/SS/2010, 2393/SS/2010, 2392/SS/2010, and 2394/SS/2010, were originally pending in different courts but were transferred to the said Magistrate's court by order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the complaints were not maintainable in Mumbai as the drawee bank was located elsewhere, and sought return of the complaints under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate rejected the applications on the ground that the stage under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been reached, as the complainant had filed affidavits of evidence and cross-examination had commenced in one case. The High Court examined the issue and referred to its earlier decision in Sushil Kumar Saxena v. Mohammad Sami Ahmed (Criminal Writ Petition No.3457 of 2012), which held that the stage under Section 145(2) is reached only when the examination-in-chief is concluded and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine. The Court noted that in the present cases, although affidavits of evidence had been filed, cross-examination was either ongoing or yet to begin, and therefore the stage under Section 145(2) had not been reached. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Magistrate to consider the applications for return of complaints on their own merits, without being influenced by the earlier rejection.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Return of Complaint - Stage under Section 145(2) - The issue was whether the stage under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been reached in the complaints, as the complainant had filed affidavits of evidence and cross-examination had begun in one case. The Court held that the stage under Section 145(2) is reached only when the examination-in-chief is concluded and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine. Since the affidavits of evidence were filed but cross-examination was not complete, the stage under Section 145(2) had not been reached. The Court allowed the petitions and directed the Magistrate to consider the applications for return of complaints on merits. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the stage under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been reached in the complaints for the purpose of considering an application for return of complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to consider the applications for return of complaints on their own merits, without being influenced by the earlier rejection.
Law Points
- Stage under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 is reached only when the complainant's examination-in-chief is concluded and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine
- mere filing of affidavit of evidence does not amount to conclusion of examination-in-chief
