IMPORTANT POINT
If five different acts done in five different localities, anyone of Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of five areas can become place of trial for offence under S. 138 of the Act.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J. — By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘Cr.P.C.’ ) the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case No. 2506/1/10 titled as M/s Ali Trading Exposition v. M/s Royal Place in Hotel.

Briefly stating the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’ ) against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that in the month of November, 2008 the petitioner herein approached the respondent/complainant for purchase of LPG heaters. The petitioner after being satisfied with the product, quality and price place an order of LPG heaters being 167 in number for a total price of Rs. 11,25,000 (Rupees eleven lakhs and twenty five thousand). The petitioner issued two posted dated cheques bearing No. 14681031 dated 17.12.2008 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) and the other bearing No. 14681032 dated 27.12.2008 for Rs. 6,25,000 (Rupees six lakhs and twenty five thousand) both drawn on the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited towards the price of the heaters. In the month of December, 2008, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 and requested not to present the said cheques on accounts of financial difficulties and requested to present the same only after confirmation. However, despite repeated follow up, the petitioner had been avoiding payment on one pretext or the other. The respondent No.2 presented the said two cheques which were dishonoured due to “insufficient funds” on 4.4.2009. Respondent No.2 sent a legal notice dated 30.4.2009 by registered A.D. post which was applied by the petitioner by reply dated 15.5.2009. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment of cheques within stipulated period. With respect to jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi, it was pleaded that the complainant’s bank is at Delhi and intimation of dishonour of cheques has been received at Delhi. Thus, the offence has been committed at Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.

2. Taking cognizance of the complaint, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi summoned the petitioner to face trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Act on 18.12.2009. Vide order dated 23.4.2012, the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner.

3. Failing aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred present petition, inter alia, stating that the Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint, there is no cause of action against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the entire transaction took place at Srinagar. The drawee bank of the petitioner is also at Srinagar and Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision petition bearing No. 13/2013 against order dated 4.2.2013 whereby process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C was issued, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 4.3.2013.

5. Short question involved in the present petition is regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction is to be considered with reference to Section 138 of the Act and the applicable provisions of Cr.P.C. i.e. Sections 177, 178 and 179. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.C. Bhaskaran v. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 510, after considering Sections 178 and 179 of Cr.P.C. has opined that an offence may be committed in different localities and thus can be tried in any Court having jurisdiction over said localities. To put it pithily, law recognizes more than one Court having territorial jurisdiction and the issue of territorial jurisdiction would have to be decided with reference to whethe