Territorial jurisdiction in the matter of a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be carefully considered, and the method adopted by the complainant should not be intended to harass the accused.

An interesting question touching upon the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court to entertain a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, has come up for consideration in this petition filed under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The question is: Does a criminal court get jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the sole reason that the statutory notice demanding payment had been issued by the Advocate of the complainant who has his office within the territorial limits of that court?

3. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.

4. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. In Annexure A complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant, it is averred that the cheque for a sum of Rs.98,000/- issued by the petitioner/accused was dishonoured when it was presented for collection. Though a statutory notice was issued on behalf of the complainant, intimating dishonour and demanding payment, the accused had failed to discharge the liability. In the nature of the short question that has cropped up for consideration in this case, it is not necessary to deal with the various contentions raised by the accused as regards the transaction between him and the complainant and also the liability of the accused to discharge the alleged debt.

5. The primary contention raised by the petitioner/accused is that the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pathanamthitta before which Annexure A complaint is pending now, has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The case of the petitioner is that the cheque having been issued, presented and dishonoured within the limits of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adoor, the complainant was not entitled to file the complaint before the court at Pathanamthitta on the sole ground that thee demand for payment was made by his counsel from his office at Pathanamthitta. Learned counsel submits that if the complainant is allowed to choose the forum, it will result in disastrous consequences. An unscrupulous complainant will use it as a handle to harass the drawer of a cheque and drag him to any criminal court of his choice.

6. Is the above contention legally tenable, particularly in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (2000 (2) KLJ 58)?

7. It .is the admitted position that the complainant and the accused are residents of Adoor Taluk. The address of the complainant in the cause title of Annexure A complaint and in the petition filed before this court shows that he is residing within the limits of Adoor Post Office. Similarly, the address of the petitioner/accused shows that he is a resident within the limits of Ananthappally Post Office in Adoor. It is also revealed from the complaint that the accused had drawn the cheque in question on the Adoor Branch of State Bank of Travancore and that it was presented by the complainant for encashment through his account in Adoor Co-operative Bank at Adoor. Obviously, the complaint was filed before the court at Pathanamthitta solely for the reason that the demand notice was issued from Pathanamthitta.

8. Paragraph 9 of Annexure A complaint is extracted hereunder :

"As for the territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted that the notice demanding the cheque amount having been made at Pathanamthitta on 29-7-2004 within the jurisdiction of this honourable court." (emphasis supplied)

Learned counsel for the complainant conceded that but for the above reason, Annexure A complaint ought to have been filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adoor. Annexure B is stated to be the true copy of the statutory demand notice issued by the Advocate of the complainant from his office at Pathanamthitta.

9. Learned counsel for the complaint submits that there is nothing