IMPORTANT POINT
Place where offence has been committed plays important role.

Ajit Bharihoke, J.—M/s. Grandlay Electricals (India), the petitioner herein, vide instant revision petition has prayed for setting aside of order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the learned M.M.-1 (N.1. Act): SE Distt., whereby the complaint of the petitioner filed under Section 138, N.I.Act was returned to be filed before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act against the respondents No. 1 & 2 claiming that the petitioner company had supplied some material to the respondent No.1 firm. The respondent firm accordingly issued Cheque No. 153379 dated 26.10.2010 for Rs. 15.99,770/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Ludhiana against the payment of the goods supplied. The cheque was presented by the petitioner to its banker Punjab & Sind Bank, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The cheque, however. was returned unpaid by the drawee bank on the ground of “Insufficiency of Fund”. The petitioner was informed about the dishonour of the said cheque by its banker vide memo advice dated 19.11.2010. The petitioner, ths, issued a demand notice as envisaged under Section 138, N.I.Act to the respondent firm, which was sent through registered A.D. Post on the correct address of the respondent/accused. The registered A.D. notice was received back undelivered with the remark “unclaimed” on 03rd December, 2010. Since the respondent/accused failed to pay the demanded amount of cheque within the requisite period of 15 days of the said notice, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act against the respondents No.1 & 2.

3. On conclusion of preliminary enquiry, learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 28th January, 2011, relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd.1; Shri Ishar Alloy Sales Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd.2 and judgments of this court, came to the conclusion that no part of cause of action arose within the territory of Delhi, as such, the complaint was returned for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner/complainant has approached this court in revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Heavily relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan3, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid case, Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of territorial jurisdiction held that the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts namely, (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Learned counsel submitted that in K.Bhaskaran case, Supreme Court held that if the five different acts were done in different localities,anyone of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of those five local areas would have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138, N.I.Act. It is contended that in the instant case, the cheque was presented for encashment by the petitioner/complainant to his banker Punjab & Sind Bank, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi and “cheque dishonoured” advice was also received from the said bank, as such, Delhi Court has got jurisdiction to try this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court 173 (2010), Delhi Law Times 185 in the matter of Religare Finvest Ltd. v. State and Anr. On the strength of aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that Delhi Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint, as su