ORDER

This petition has been filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1036 of 2017 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The respondent herein has filed a private complaint stating that the petitioners herein have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Based on the said complaint, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai has taken the case on file in C.C.No.1036 of 2017 and issued summons to the accused persons. After receipt of the summons, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has submitted that the petitioners are doing a business in Textiles in the name and style of “M/s.Shankar Selection (P) Ltd” in Calcutta, and it was a family business. The petitioners availed cash and credit facility from the respondent bank in the year 2014. At the time of availing the loan, the petitioners have executed various documents and also issued two blank cheques. He further submitted that as there were some problems in the family, the family businesses were partitioned and that the petitioners' brother loan was declared as 'NPA'. Consequent to that the petitioners' loan accounts was also declared as 'NPA' account and their account was frozen in the year 2015.

4. He further submitted that the said cheques were given only for security purpose and there is no liability for the said cheques. The petitioners were shocked to receive a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dated 03.03.2017 from the respondent bank, as if two cheques of Kotak Mahindra Bank, (the respondent bank), were issued to the respondent bank and the same were presented for collection in the frozen account by the respondent bank. He further submitted that the blank cheques which were given at the time of availing the loan in Calcutta were presented in Chennai branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank in the account which was frozen by the respondent bank and notice was issued and the present complaint has been filed by the respondent bank. He further submitted that admittedly, the entire transaction took place only in Calcutta, however, the cheques were presented in the Chennai and legal notice was issued from Chennai and based on that, the respondent has filed the private complaint before the Court at Chennai. He further submitted that the Court at Chennai is not having jurisdiction to try the case and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1036 of 2017 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai.

5. In support of the aforesaid contentions, he relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Good Luck Traders Vs. State and Others (CRL.MC.Nos.4106 to 4108 of 2014 dated 17.12.2014). 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the petitioners have not denied the issuance of the cheques in favour of the respondent bank for discharging the debt. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129 has held that the general rule stipulated under Section 177 Cr.P.C., applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It has further held that the prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 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 by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and

220 thereof.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent, further submitted that