Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—Heard.

2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying that the order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambher Lake, District Jaipur along with the order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the revisional court below whereby order dated 30th June, 2009 was affirmed, be set aside.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions to fortify the prayer made in this petition:-

(a) That even though the cheque was presented at Sambher Lake, the Court at Sambher lake has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as petitioner being a resident of Maharshtra issued the cheque from her account at Maharashtra.

4. The controversy raised is no longer res integra. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nishant Agarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 72) has upheld the ratio of law laid in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vidhyan Balan & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 510 = RLW 1993(3) SC 470). Their Lordships have formulated the following question:-

"2. The question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the N.I. Act") or would it be only the Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the drawee bank or the bank on which the cheque is drawn?"

5. Thereafter, their Lordship had answered the question as under:-

"8) Inasmuch as the issue in question is directly considered by this Court in K. Bhaskaran (supra), before going into the applicability of other decisions, it is useful to refer the relevant portion of the judgment in paras 10 and 11 of the said case which reads thus:

9) Para 11 of K. Bhaskaran (supra) as quoted above, clarified the place in the context of territorial jurisdiction as per the fifth component, namely, "failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt." As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the respondent, the place of failure to pay the amount has been clearly qualified by this Court as the place where the drawer resides or the place where the payee resides. In view of the same and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in K. Bhaskaran (supra), we are of the view that the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the respondent as the respondent is undisputedly a resident of Bhiwani. Further, in K. Bhaskaran (supra), while considering the territorial jurisdiction at great length, this Court has concluded that the amplitude of territorial jurisdiction at great length, this Court has concluded that the amplitude of territorial jurisdiction pertaining to a complaint under the N.I. Act is very wide and expansive and we are in entire agreement with the same.

13) As observed earlier, we must note that in K. Bhaskaran (supra), this Court has held that Section 178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and Section 179 of the Code has stretched it to still a wider horizon. Further, for the sake of repetition, we reiterate that the judgment in Ishar Alloy (supra) does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran (supra) which provides jurisdiction at the place of residence of the payer and the payee. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances and even on merits, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-accused."

6. I have also, while holding Court of Calcutta High Court taken a view that place where the cheque is presented and is returned will have a territorial jurisdiction to try complaint. It was held in Anu Mehta vs. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. (2013(5) RCR Crime 491) as under:-

7. Shri Shibadas Banerji, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Mritunjoy Chatterjee, Counsel, appearing for Anu Mehta and Shri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document