IMPORTANT POINT
In view of section 142 (2)(a), inserted by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, the court at the place where the payee maintains his account an where the cheque was intimated to have been dishonoured would have jurisdiction u/s 138.

JUDGMENT

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No.1557 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7850 of 2011)

1. Leave granted.

2. Despite service, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. A cheuqe No.1950, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, was issued by Inderpal Singh (the respondent herein) to the appellant -M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. The cheque was in the sum of Rs.26,958/-. The appellant -M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. presented the above cheque at the IDBI Bank in Indore. The appellant received intimation of its being dishonoured on account of “…exceeds arrangement…” on 04.08.2006 at Indore.

4. The appellant issued a legal notice on 26.08.2006, which was served on the respondent – Inderpal Singh on 06.09.2006, demanding the amount depicted in the cheque. The appellant informed the respondent, that he would be compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if payment was not made by the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice.

5. Consequent upon the issuance of the aforementioned legal notice wherein the respondent was required to reimburse the cheuqe amount to the appellant, and the respondent having failed to discharge his obligation, proceedings were initiated by the appellant on 13.10.2006 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

6. The accused-respondent -Inderpal Singh, preferred an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contesting the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the above cheque drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh. The prayer made by the respondent, that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated by the appellant – M/s Bridgestone Indian Pvt.Ltd. was declined on 02.06.2009. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, AIR 1999 SC 3762, to record a finding in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, dated 02.06.2009, the respondent-Inderpal Singh preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh before its Indore Bench. Having examined the controversy in hand and keeping in mind the fact, that a number of documents were presented by the respondent – Inderpal Singh during the course of hearing before the High Court, by an order dated 03.12.2009, the petition filed by the accused- respondent was disposed of, by remitting the case to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, requiring him to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the additional documents relied upon, and the judgments cited before the High Court.

7. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, yet again, by an order dated 11.01.2010 held, that he had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy raised by the appellant – M/s Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decision rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, was again assailed by the accused-respondent in yet another petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh before its Indore Bench. The High Court accepted the prayer made by the accused-respondent -Inderpal Singh by holding, that the jurisdiction lay only before the Court wherein the original drawee bank was located, namely, at Chandigarh, where-from the accused-respondent had issued the concerned cheque bearing No.1950, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh.

8. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dated 05.05.2011, the appellant has approached this Cour