IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of local areas within territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done.

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The prayer in this petition is to call for the records in S.T.C.No.670 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode, and quash the same.

2. This matter was directed to be listed before a Larger Bench, comprising three Judges, on reference by a learned single Judge, to decide the following issues :

(i) During post cognizance stage, if the Magistrate is convinced that he lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case, can it be lawful for the Magistrate to submit the case records along with a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (either in the same State or outside) to whom he is not subordinate?

(ii) In exercise of its inherent powers, whether the High Court can quash the cognizance taken by a Magistrate who lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case?

(iii) During post cognizance stage, whether the High Court can order return of the complaint and the connected records to the complainant so as to enable him to go before the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the said High Court ?

(iv) During post cognizance stage, whether the High Court can simply direct the Magistrate to return the complaint without interfering with the order taking cognizance and if so whether all the records including statements recorded under Sections 200 & 201 of Cr.P.C. and the report of the Police Officer under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. can also be returned along with the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Magistrate ?

(v) If it is so held that the High Court can quash the order taking cognizance and consequently direct the Magistrate to return the complaint, whether the other records such as statements recorded under Sections 200; 201 of Cr.P.C. and the report of the Police Officer under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. are also to be returned along with the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Magistrate?

3. When the above five questions were referred by the learned single Judge for answer by the Full Bench, the earlier Full Bench, in addition to the above five questions, framed an additional issue for answer, as follows :

“Whether the presentation of a cheque in a bank where the complainant maintains the account would confer jurisdiction to the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the bank is situate, to take cognizance of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?”

4. Now that two Judges of the earlier Full Bench have since retired, the matter is directed to be listed before this Full Bench, by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice. Accordingly, the matter is taken up.

5. Before deciding the above points, let us have a glance at the facts of the case. The respondent/complainant is doing textile business in Karungalpalayam, Erode District. On 10.07.2010, the petitioner/accused purchased textiles from the respondent on credit as per Invoice No.7 for a sum of Rs.1,47,262/-. In discharge of the sale consideration, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque dated 10.09.2010 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, New Delhi, for the said sum. The respondent presented the said cheque for collection in his account in Bank of India at Erode. It was returned dishonoured by the said bank on 04.02.2011 for insufficient funds. Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 24.02.2011 from Erode. Having received the said notice at New Delhi, the petitioner issued a reply notice, but, he did not pay the amount, as demanded. Thus, according to the respondent, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Mr. Arpanbehl, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the cheque was drawn on ING Vysya Bank, New Delhi; it was dishonoured in New Delhi; the legal notice was also received only in New Delhi and hence the entire cause of action for the offence had taken place only in New Delhi. He would further contend that mere supply of goods from Erode; receipt of cheque by the respondent at Erode