The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, providing for the transfer of cases to the court having jurisdiction, prevailed over the earlier judgment of the Apex Court, and the court applied the law prevailing at the time of the decision.

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case No.1588 of 2011, Ramesh v. Jitendra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in a business relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 in respect of supply of wheat, the applicant had given a cheque of Rs.8,50,000/- drawn in favour of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that when the prices of wheat were increased, the opposite party no.2 refused to supply the goods and, therefore, the applicant asked the bank to stop honour of the cheque. The aforesaid cheque was presented by the opposite party no.2 to the drawee bank and the same was dishonoured mentioning the reason that a request to stop payment has been made by the applicant. It is next submitted that the applicant had already paid the cheque amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- but the goods were not supplied by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has filed the present complaint on 4.8.2011 containing absolutely false and vague allegations only in order to cause sheer harassment of the applicant.

4. On the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded u/S 200 Cr.P.C. and documentary evidence viz. notice receipt, original cheque, slip of dishonour cheque of Punjab National Bank and the statement of P.W.-1, Piyush Goel recorded u/S 202 Cr.P.C., the court below found prima facie case is made out against the applicant, hence passed the order dated 18.10.2011 summoning him to face trial under Section 138 of the Act. The applicant surrendered on 15.5.2013 and was released on bail. Thereafter the court below has also proceeded to record evidence and the application moved by the applicant u/S 245(2) Cr.P.C.

5. It is further submitted that the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah has no jurisdiction to try the offence in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 which was decided on 1.8.2014 wherein after considering the provision of Section 142 of the Act with respect to cognizance of offences, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case the cause of action accrues to the complainant the jurisdiction of the court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured. It is further held that the prosecution in cases where the cheque is dishonoured under Section 138 of the Act, the case be lodged against the drawer of the cheque only before the court within whose jurisdiction dishonour of cheque takes place, except in situation where the offence of dishonour of cheque punishable under Section 138 of the Act is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered under provision of Section 182(1) read with Section 184 and 220 Cr.P.C. thereof.

6. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court the cheque which was given by the applicant at Varanasi and the cheque was dishonoured by the bank the court where the cheque was issued has the jurisdiction to try the offence. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), the learned Magistrate, Etah by order dated 25.2.2015 has returned the case of the complainant to file before the appropriate court. The learned Magistrate has categorically held that the cheque was dishonoured not within its jurisdiction and as such the court has no jurisdiction to try the offence. The said order was passed on 25.2.2015 relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court which was decided on 1.8.2014. Lat