Jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the location of the bank where the cheque is presented for collection.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against him and his proprietary concern alleging commission of offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 24.07.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the Trial Magistrate), whereby cognizance of the offences has been taken and the process has been issued against the petitioner.

2. It appears that a complaint came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner and M/s ANN Infrastructure before the learned Trial Magistrate alleging therein that a cheque in the amount of Rs. 60 lacs was issued by the petitioner from his account maintained with Axis Bank Limited Jammu in discharge of his liability towards the respondent. It has been further pleaded in the complaint that when the said cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant for encashment through his banker ICICI Bank Limited in his account No. 003101041811, the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement on the memo “title of account required” vide memo dated 30.09.2020. It was further pleaded by the complainant that a legal notice/demand dated 08.10.2020 was served by the respondent upon the petitioner but in spite of receipt of the same, he failed to repay the cheque amount. Accordingly, the impugned complaint for commission of offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and section 420 RPC was filed before the learned Trial Magistrate.

3. It appears that the learned Trial Magistrate after going through the preliminary statement of the complainant in the shape of a sworn affidavit and the documents annexed with the complaint, framed a prima facie opinion that the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioner and the co-accused. Accordingly vide impugned order dated 24.07.2021 process has been issued against the petitioner and the co-accused.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily assailed impugned order dated 24.07.2021 on two grounds, one that the cheque in question was presented by the respondent in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Sector 128 Noida, Utter Pradesh and as such, the Trial Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Secondly that it was not open to the learned Trial Magistrate to accept the preliminary evidence of the complainant by way of an affidavit, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Trial Magistrate was obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and to record the statement of the complainant on oath before issuing process against the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that the complaint has remained pending before the learned Trial Court for more than two years but the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the learned Trial Magistrate without raising any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. He has further contended that even during the pendency of the proceedings negotiations regarding settlement of the case took place and the petitioner even liquidated a substantial portion of the cheque amount during the proceedings held before the learned Trial Magistrate. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Magistrate and he cannot now turn around and challenge the same.

7. Regarding the second contention, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that the provisions contained in section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly provide that it is open to the Magistrate to record the evidence of the complainant on affidavits in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings u