The court clarified the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the credibility of commercial transactions and avoiding bouncing of cheques.

This petition is filed by the accused in S.T. 1500/94 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom it quash Annexure-I complaint pending before that Court under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Annexure-I complaint is filed by the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom alleging offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has registered S.T. No. 1500/94 against the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the petitioner. At that juncture the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court to quash the complaint mainly on the ground that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom has no jurisdiction since no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court.

3. The petitioner has contended that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged in the complaint was from the residence of the petitioner at Arangom desom in Alakode Village within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba and therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom is liable to be quashed since that Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. This contention of the petitioner is not sustainable since it is clearly stated in para 1 of Annexure-I complaint that the petitioner received Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent on 8-2-1994 and issued a cheque drawn on Alakode branch of the Syndicate Bank dated 8-3-94 from the house of the petitioner. The interpretation to the recitals made in para 1 of the complaint sought to be placed by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the amount was paid and cheque was issued from the house of the petitioner in Alakode Village, is not sustainable and not warranted from the clear recitals made in that paragraph of the complaint.

5. The counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the cheque is issued from the residence of the petitioner in Alakode Village, the respondent has got cause of action to institute the proceedings under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom since he had presented the cheque for encashment before the Kuruppanthara Branch of the State Bank of Travancore, within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action as contemplated u/S. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered and the place where the creditor resides cannot be the place of payment contemplated in the Act unless and until there is clear indication to that effect either by express terms or by necessary implication. In support of this contention the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Muraleedharan v. Pareed 1992 (1) KLT 59 : (1992 Cri LJ 1965).

7. But in a subsequent decision in Mohammed Kunhi v. Abdul Kajeed (1995 (2) KLT 900) another single Judge of this Court has held that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that decision the learned single Judge had relied upon the decision of a single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka 1992 (1) KLT 393 : (1991 Cri LJ 2529) wherein after detailed consideration of S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the provisions of Ss. 178 and 179 of Cr.P.C. the Court observed as follows :

"Therefore, in the view of the provisions of Sections 178(b) and 179, Cr.P.C. the complaint can be filed in a Court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued o