The court clarified the legal principles related to the maintainability of complaints, territorial jurisdiction, and the expeditious conduct of trial processes.

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.:-

1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been preferred to set aside the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, in objections filed by the petitioner to the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending against him and the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-accused against the aforesaid trial court order. The aforesaid complaint was originally filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, by the complainant on 29.04.2008, The learned Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issuance of process. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner-accused caused appearance before the trial Magistrate on 20.05.2008 and furnished bail bonds and personal bonds. The case was adjourned to 08.07.2008 for recording the statement of accused under Section 242 Cr.P.C. On the subsequent dates the petitioner-accused absented from the proceedings, probably on account of some disturbances in the area.

2. Meanwhile, he filed a 561-A Cr.P.C. Petition No. 114/2008 before this Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate. Pursuant to order dated 14.08.2008 passed in that petition, the proceedings in complaint were stayed. Concomitant therewith, the petitioner also filed Criminal Transfer Application No. 28/2008 seeking transfer of the criminal complaint from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Srinagar on the ground of ailment of his mother and disturbance at Kathua.

3. The aforesaid two petitions were heard together and were dismissed by order dated 25.05.2009 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. While deciding the 561-A Cr.P.C. petition, the Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment, adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, observed as under:

"19. Petitioner has every right to justify his action of issuing the instructions to his Banker to stop the payment of 'Security Cheque' i.e. he can project:

(i) There was no legally enforceable debt;

(ii) He had sufficient funds in his account but payment was stopped for reasons of no liability to pay;

(iii) To show that the instruction for stoppage was issued as the amount of the 'Security Cheque' would exceed limit of debt if at all found enforceable"

The aforesaid observations were made by the Court in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. M/s. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 234, the relevant portion whereof was quoted in paragraph 20 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder:

"20. In my view I am fortified by the judgment captioned M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234. It shall be quite apt to quote para No. 19 of the judgment.

19. Just such a contention has been negative by this Court in the case of Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi. It has been held that even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of 'stop-payment' instruction an offence under Section 138 could still be made out. It is held that the presumption under Section 139 is attracted in such a case also. The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop-payment instructions by virtue of Section 139 the court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course, this is a rebut table presumption. The accused can thus show that 'stop-payment' instructions were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop-payment noti