The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of jurisdictional issues and the maintainability of a single complaint for different causes of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This C482 application is directed against the summoning order dated 18.07.2013, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.337 of 2013, M/s Sriram Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Purvanchal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. & another, whereby, after taking the cognizance under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, applicants were summoned to face the trial. The applicants have also prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal complaint case.

2. The complaint was filed by the respondent against the applicants under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur on 14.05.2013. In the said complaint, it has been stated that the complainant-Company is a registered Company which deals in the production of Neem Organic Manure and Bio Pesticides etc., and the complainant-Company owed a sum of Rs.4 lacs against the applicants who purchased bio pesticides, Neem Organic Manure, on credit, from the complainant-Company. Two cheques bearing no.539358 dated 15.12.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- and Cheque No.539359 dated 15.12.2012 for Rs.1,50,000/- were issued to the complainant-Company drawn at I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Faizabad Branch to the applicants for the aforesaid amount of Rs.4.00 lakh with the assurance that whenever the aforesaid cheques would be presented to the banker of the complainant-Company, the same would be encashed. When the respondent-complainant presented the cheques to his banker Bank of Baroda, Main Branch Kashipur for encashment, both the cheques were dishonoured by his banker vide memo dated 13.03.2013 issued by the bank with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The respondent-complainant issued two registered notices through his Advocate-Anand Swaroop Rastogi to the applicants on 10.04.2013 by registered A.D. on the address of the applicants, which were served upon them on 13.04.2013. However, even after receipt of notice and demand for making the payment of the cheques’ amount, no payment was made by the applicants, and consequently, the aforesaid complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The learned Magistrate after perusal of evidence of the respondent-complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and considering the relevant documents, took cognizance against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and summoned the applicants vide impugned summoning order dated 18.07.2013.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order dated 18.07.2013 and challenging the entire proceedings of the criminal complaint case, the applicants have filed the present C482 application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. At the outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that although this C482 application was moved on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction that since the cheques were issued and drawn at Faizabad branch of ICICI Bank, the Courts at Kashipur had no jurisdiction, but after the controversy regarding the territorial jurisdiction has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 9 SCC 129, and subsequent amendment of Section 142 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide amending Act No.26 of 2015 (w.r.e.f. 15.06.2015), the said ground is no longer in existence in favour of the applicants, and the same is, accordingly, not pressed. However, he put his challenge to the summoning order on other grounds as agitated in the C482 application.

6. It is strenuously argued by learned counsel for the applicants that since two cheques were issued by the applicants in favour of the complainant-Company and two notices were sent by the complainant-Company for the payment of cheque amount, the single com