1. The core issue involved in this case is whether the Court below was justified in entertaining the complaint preferred under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the ‘NI Act’) and was further justified in framing the charge when cheque was drawn from Lalitpur and was dishonoured from the bank situated at Lalitpur ?

2. Shri Amit Lahoti’s submission is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in (2014)9 SCC 129 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another). He urged that the apex Court made it clear that unilateral act of complainant in presenting the cheque at a place of his choice or issuing a notice for payment of the dishonoured amount cannot arm the complainant with the power to chose the place of trial. The trial must be at a place where cheque was deposited for collection in the bank of drawer.

3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Rathore by contending that the petitioner for this reason earlier visited this Court by filing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5352/2009. In the said case, the petitioner was given liberty to raise this objection during cross-examination of witnesses or at the time of final argument. Thus, this petition be not ent