IMPORTANT POINT
As no distinction between pending and cases to be instituted in future has been drawn by Supreme Court.

Om Prakash-VII, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the further proceeding of criminal case no. 53 of 2014 pending before Special Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as further proceeding in pursuance of the summoning order dated 29.10.2014 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. It appears that respondent no. 2 Manoj Kumar Jain had issued a cheque no. 409405 ACB/SV No. 1409405 on 14.3.2013 in favour of the applicant for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs in connection with the business transaction being done between them. The cheque was issued from the account maintained in the Amanath Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore. The said cheque was presented for encashment before the UCO Bank at Firozabad. The aforesaid cheque was returned back unpaid and the applicant’s bank i.e. UCO Bank sent an intimation to him in this regard. In turn the applicant sent a notice to the drawer demanding an amount of Rs. 20 lacs. The amount was never paid by the respondent no. 2 to the applicant. The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the court situated at District Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. The accused respondent was summoned and he appeared and obtained bail from the court concerned. During the pendency of the trial an application was moved by the accused respondent with the prayer that since the cheque has been dishonoured at Bangalore, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 (86) ACC 882 (SC), the court situated at Bangalore has only jurisdiction to try the matter. Objection was filed by the applicant before the court below.

4. After hearing the parties, by order dated 29.10.2014 the court below directed that the complaint be returned to the complainant for its presentation before the competent court at Bangalore within one month. Operative portion of the order is quoted below for ready reference :

“Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain, counsel for the accused placed reliance on ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. (supra) The three Judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that Sec 177 of Cr. P.C. applies to cases under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Prosecution in such case can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable u/s 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Sec. 220 (1) read with Sec. 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Sec. 182 (1) read with Sec. 184 and 220 thereof.

In the case, in hand the cheque was certainly dishonoured at Bangalore. Therefore competent court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to try this case under Section 138 N. I. Act.”

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order the applicant has filed the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the law laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (Supra) is not applicable to the pending cases. Accused has been summoned and trial is going on, therefore, impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal. Reference was also made at this stage to the law laid down in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, 1999 (39) A.C.C. 844 (SC) and the law laid down in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (Supra).

7. Learned A.G.A. argued that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the place of suing is the place where the cheque is dishonoured, therefore, learned trial court has rightly returned the complaint and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

8. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for th