P.V. Sanjay Kumar JUDGMENT
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. By way of these transfer petitions filed Under Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, Yogesh Upadhyay and his proprietary concern, M/s. Shakti Buildcon, seek transfer of SCC Nos. 25668/2019 and 26875/2019, both titled 'Atlanta Limited v. M/s. Shakti Buildcon and Anr.', pending before the learned 22nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, and the learned 20th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, respectively, to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, to be tried along with Complaint Case Nos. 42489/2019, 1464/2020, 7596/2020 and 4094/2020, all titled 'Atlanta Limited v. Yogesh Upadhyay'. These six complaint cases were filed against the Petitioners by Atlanta Limited, the Respondent herein, Under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'the Act of 1881'].
2. The six cheques, which are the subject-matter of these complaint cases, were issued by the Petitioners in connection with purchase of a NAWA-make crusher plant from the Respondent company for a sum of ` 1,88,80,000/-, under Agreement dated 04.06.2019. This sale consideration was to be paid in seven installments by way of cheques. The first cheque issued by the Petitioners for a sum of ` 11,80,000/- was duly honoured upon presentation by the Respondent company. The remaining six cheques, however, were dishonoured on the strength of 'Stop payment' instructions. The first two cheques that came to be dishonoured were presented by the Respondent company through its bank at Nagpur, Maharashtra. The first two complaint cases were accordingly filed before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra. The remaining four cheques were thereafter presented by the Respondent company through its bank at New Delhi and in consequence, those complaint cases were filed before the Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
3. Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, would contend that as all the cheques relate to the same transaction, it would be proper and appropriate that the cases pertaining to their dishonour are tried and decided together. He would rely on case law to support his contention.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, learned Counsel for the Respondent company, would contend that Section 142 of the Act of 1881 would override Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the non obstante Clause therein, and that the two cases filed at Nagpur, Maharashtra, therefore cannot be transferred. Further, he would assert that Section 142(2) of the Act of 1881 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts at Nagpur in so far as the first two complaint cases are concerned. He would also place reliance on case law.
5. It is now well settled that the offence Under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is complete upon dishonour of the cheque but pro........