1. Criminal Revision is directed against the order made in CMP No. 792 of 2012 dated 12.10.2012 in C.C. No. 244 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dismissing the petition filed under Section 191 Cr.P.C.

2. Material on record discloses that the petitioner, has issued two cheques dated 23.03.2009 bearing Nos. 860362 and 860363 each for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- cheques presented in Corporation Bank by the respondent have been returned with an endorsement dated 24.03.2009 "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT." Thereafter, the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 02.10.2009, which has been acknowledged on 13.10.2009 by the petitioner, alleging commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint preferred has been taken on record in C.C. No. 244 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties in this revision petition that when C.C. No. 244 of 2009 was posted for cross examination of PW-1, CMP No. 792 of 2012 under Section 191 Cr.P.C., was filed by the revision petitioner to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case or in the alternative to direct the respondent/complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Court at Tiruppur or Coimbatore, having territorial jurisdiction.

4. Facts in nutshell are that Cheques Exs.P1 to P4, were issued at Coimbatore, drawn in Corporation Bank, deposited for collection at Corporation Bank, Coimbatore, now at Tiruppur District. Return memos were issued from Tiruppur and Coimbatore District. Statutory notice Ex.P8 was issued and received by the petitioner/accused at Coimbatore. Thus, it was argued before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam that merely because the statutory notice was issued from Palladam, the Court lacked jurisdiction. Opposing the said Crl. M.P. No. 792 of 2012, the respondent has contended inter alia that the Court at Palladam had jurisdiction. Objections were also raised that petition filed under Section 191 Cr.P.C. was only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and to defeat the claim of the cheque amount.

5. After considering the rival submissions and Section 191 Cr.P.C. the Court below, by observing that the said provision could be invoked only for transfer of a case from one Magistrate to another, when there was no territorial jurisdiction and having regard to the fact the 5 areas of transactions were involved in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, viz. (i) Bank in which the cheque was drawn, (ii) Presentation of the cheque with the concerned bank, (iii) Return of the cheque by the drawee bank, (iv) giving the notice in writing to the drawee of the cheque and viz., demand for payment and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the statutory notice, and taking note of the then prevailing position of law, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, held that the Court had competence to entertain the complaint and further observed that Section 191 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dismissed the petition in CMP No. 792 of 2012 vide order dated 12.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. In a latest three Bench judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, the Apex Court at paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 held as follows:

"21. The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly the JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the Complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by the JMFC at that place however, can be taken only