1. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has filed two separate complaints under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, one relatable to the cheque bearing No. 603651 and another relatable to the cheque bearing No. 603652 drawn on Union Bank of India Domlur branch Banglore-71, each for a sum of Rs. 15/lacs.

2. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar while taking cognizance in both the complaints, has issued process vide order dated 29.6.2007 separately in both the two complaints.

3. Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the accused) by medium of two revision petitions filed before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, Challenged the said order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on three counts, first that the trail court has acted without jurisdiction, second cheque being posted dated are not covered by Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and third the limitation imposed by Section 138/142 has not been taken note of by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned revisional court disagreeing with the said contention dismissed both the revision petitions by two separate orders dated 8.7.2008.

4. The accused dis-satisfied with both the orders of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as of the revisional court, by instant petitions have sought quashment of the entire proceedings principally on the star ground of lack of jurisdiction.

5. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners would content that in view of the allegations contained in the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and learned trial court ignoring the same has straightway taken the cognizance. It is further contended that in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Case K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, it has been held that any one of local areas such as (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the complainant has a liberty to file a complaint at any of these places. All the said acts have been done at Bangalore, so in any case the Court at Srinagar has no jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel further contended that even while applying Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the exceptions as envisaged by Sections 179 to 183 Cr. P.C, the Court at Srinagar has no jurisdiction as none of the transactions have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.

7. While having glance through the contents of the complaint, the contention raised is found to be attractive and with merit. In both the complaints it is alleged that complainant is a business concern having its principle place of business at Karan Nagar Srinagar J&K. The proprietor of the firm- the complainant, in the month of February,2007 went to Bangalore for the purpose of buying lands in and around Devanhalli Bangalore Rural District where the complainant along with his father Shri Roshan Lal Mawa and his brother Shri Sunil Mawa met both the accused and negotiated to buy agricultural land bearing survey No. 89 at Polahalli Village Chennarayapatna Hobli Devanhalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District measuring 2 Acres as were in the name of accused No.1. Price of the land was settled at Rs. 64,50,000/-. The complainant got a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/ transferred from his account maintained in Punjab National Bank, Srinagar through RTGS to the joint account No. 54539 maintained in Union Bank of India, Domlur Branch Bangalore. It was further agreed that the remaining balance amount of Rs. 34, 50,000/- will be paid to the accused on 26th of March, 2007 i.e. th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document