The question raised is one for territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Petitioner without and before entering appearance before that court has come to this Court to complain that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen by the respondent/complainant with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. In these circumstances initiation and continuation of the prosecution at Ottapalasm is a transparent abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint deserves to be quashed. This in short is the plea.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent resists the prayer in the Crl.M.C. He contends that even if the contentions were accepted in toto, it would only give rise to a justifiable prayer for transfer the case to the court at Pattambi. At any rate the prayer to quash the proceedings is not justified at all. I totally agree with the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect.

4. The learned for the respondent further submits that the decision in K. Bhasakaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999 (7) SCC 510) posits that the complainant has the right to choose the forum where the prosecution should be launched. There can be no quarrel with that proposition also provided the cause of action or a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint is lodged. Does the court at Ottapalam court have jurisdiction? Has the cause of action or any part of it arisen within the jurisdiction of the court at Ottapalam? This is the crucial question. In paragraph 14 of the decision in K. Bhaskaran (supra). It has been stated clearly that concatenation of the five events shown below must be there to attract culpability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

i. Drawing of the cheque

ii. Presentation of the cheque to the bank

iii. Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank

iv. giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount

v. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

The Supreme Court in that case was specifically considering the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If any of the five events referred above, occurs within the jurisdiction of a court, that court can certainly entertain the complain on the authority of K. Bhaskaran (Supra)

5. It is not dispute by the respondent that all but the 4th event/ingredient referred above have taken place within the jurisdiction of the court at Pattambi. The complainant has his place of permanent residence also within the jurisdiction of the court at Pattambi. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding the payment of the cheque amount had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. How did that take place? The only answer is that the lawyer engaged by the petitioner to make the demand for payment on behalf of the petitioner has his office within the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam court and he had issued notice on behalf of the petitioner from that address.

6. According to me it would be myopic to understand the decision in K. Bhaskaran (Supra) as conferring jurisdiction on the court within the jurisdiction of which the lawyer who made the demand has his office or has put the notice into post. Notice of demand is issued in the name of and on behalf of the complainant. Whatever be the physical place of presence of the person making the notice of demand on behalf of the complainant, such notice of demand must be deemed or presumed to the made at the place where