IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution of dishonour of cheque could not be quashed on plea that transaction in which cheque was issued was entirely of civil nature or that agreement contained arbitration clause.

JUDGMENT

R. N. Biswal, J.—The petitioners call in question the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela in I.C.C.No.448 of 2006 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiation Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) against them. The opposite party company filed the aforesaid complaint case against petitioner No.1, a company having their office at Kolkata and the petitioner No.2, the Director of the said company on the allegation that petitioner No.1 through petitioner No.2 used to purchase iron ore mines from them. On 6.10.2006 petitioner No.2 issued cheque No.883167 for Rs.20,00,000 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Park Street, Kolkata, in favour of opposite party towards payment of outstanding dues. Opposite party company through its representative deposited the said cheque on 6.10.2006 in their accounts maintained with HDFC Bank Limited, Kolkata Branch, but the same returned unpaid on 10.10.2006 due to stop payment advice. So the opposite party company served a notice through their advocate demanding payment of the cheque amount under Registered Post No.1753 dated 26.10.2006, the receipt of which was acknowledged by petitioner No.2 on 30.6.2006. In spite of receipt of the demand notice, petitioner did not pay the cheque amount of Rs.20,00,000 within the statutory period. Hence, they filed the aforesaid complaint case on the allegation of commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After going through the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and the evidence of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioners, which is under challenge in the present CRLMC.

2. At the out set, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since no cause of action arose under the territorial jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela, he should not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioners. But, on perusal of the complaint petition, it is found that the opposite party company have their registered office in village Barapali in the District of Sundargarh and the City Office at W-7, Civil Township Rourkela-4. The demand notice was also issued from Rourkela. In the decision K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Bala and another1 the apex Court held as follows:

“The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178 (d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:

“Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”

Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities anyone of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local area can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose anyone of those Courts having jurisdiction over anyone of the local areas within the territorial limits of which anyone of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdiction