IMPORTANT POINT
Place of presentation of cheque would be place where bank of drawer is situated.

A. K. Pathak, J.—All the above-mentioned petitions are disposed of together by this order, as the same are in similar facts as also the question of law which needs to be answered, is same.

2. Petitioner filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents upon the return of cheque unpaid, on presentation. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered for return of complaint of the petitioner. for its presentation to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction. As per the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, as no part of offence had been committed at Delhi.

3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, petitioner has preferred above-mentioned petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

4. Learned senior counsel has vehemently contended that since cheques in question were presented in Delhi for the purpose of encashment, therefore, one of the Act forming component of the offence, took place in Delhi thereby attracting the jurisdiction of Delhi courts. As per the learned senior counsel complainant can choose anyone of those courts having jurisdiction over any of the local areas within the territorial limits of which anyone of the following five acts, the complaints of the offence, took place; (i) drawing of the cheque; (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank; (iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; (iv) giving of notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

5. Reliance has been placed on K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another.1 In nutshell it is contended that sign the cheques in question were presented by the petitioner at Delhi for encashment, one of the component of the offence took place at Delhi, therefore, Delhi courts have jurisdiction to try the complaint.

6. At the first blush arguments may look impressive but the same needs to be rejected in view of the settled legal position in this regard. Respondents had issued the cheques in question from the account maintained by them with their respective Banks situated in different parts of the country. Drawer’s bank was situated outside Delhi. Complainant presented cheques in question by depositing the same with its banker, who in turn presented the same to drawer’s bank. At the most, banker of the petitioner can be termed as forwarding bank and/or collecting bank. However, to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque, the same has to be presented on the drawer’s bank, on which the cheque is drawn.

7. Section 138 of the said Act Reads as under:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [“a term which may extend to two year”], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) The payee or the holder indue course of the cheque, as the case may be,