The recent verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. holds the field and emphasizes the importance of the place where the offence has been committed and the receipt of notice by the accused in determining territorial jurisdiction.

Sunil Gaur, J.

1. The question involved in the above-captioned eight petitions is of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner had filed eight complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, against the Respondents regarding bouncing of cheques.

.2. Vide impugned orders of 12th January, 2009 and 25th February, 2009, trial court has dismissed Petitioners aforesaid complaints on the ground of territorial

.jurisdiction by relying upon a recent verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. reported in : 2009 CriLJ 1109 .

3. In the above-captioned first six petitions, Petitioners complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have not been entertained vide impugned order of 12th January, 2009, and have been returned to the Petitioner at the very first hearing, for being presented before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of these criminal complaints. In the remaining above titled ten petitions, Respondents/ accused has been summoned but before the Respondents/accused could appear, these ten complaints have been returned back to the Petitioner for presenting them before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction.

4. Petitioners counsel has been heard at length and the decision in (1999) 7 SCC 510, relied upon by him have been perused.

5. I shall first deal with the first six petitions, which have not been entertained by the trial court at its threshold by holding vide impugned order that it does not have territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of Petitioners complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

.6. In these petitions, it is not in dispute that the Respondents are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and the bank of the Respondent is also beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. In the impugned order, trial court has quoted paragraphs No. 24 and 25 from a recent verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. reported in : 2009 CriLJ 1109 , which reads as under:

24. Indisputably all statutes deserve their strict application, but while doing so the cardinal principles therefor cannot be lost sight of. A Court derives a jurisdiction only when the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. The same cannot be conferred by any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused. A distinction must also be borne in mind between the ingredient of an offence and commission of a part of the offence. While issuance of a notice by the holder of a negotiable instrument is necessary, service thereof is also imperative. Only on a service of such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days thereafter, commission of an offence completes. Giving of notice, therefore, cannot have any precedent over the service. It is only from that view of the matter in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. : 2001 CriLJ 972 , emphasis has been laid on service of notice.

25. We cannot, as things stand today, be oblivious of the fact that a banking institution holding several cheques signed by the same borrower

cannot only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four different places. This only causes grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of an accused vis-a-vis the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner heavily relies upon another decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and