Crl. Misc. No.M-35118 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35118 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 30, 2010 H.S. Dhingra …..Petitioner Vs. M/s Amit Enterprises, Anandpuri Colony, …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720 to contend that the Court at Ludhiana will not have any jurisdiction in the present case and that the Gurgaon Court will have jurisdiction as the cheque which is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner pertains to a Bank situated at Gurgaon. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the argument. In the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Crl. Misc. No.M-35118 of 2010 [2] Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, (1999) 7 SCC 510, it was held that the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts, namely, (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It was opined that if five different acts were done in five different localities, any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a compliant petition at any of those places. However, in Harman Electronics case (supra), it was clarified that mere issuance of a notice from one place will not confer jurisdiction in the Courts of that place to file a complaint. In the present case, the cheque was presented by the complainant at Ludhiana; the complainant runs his business at Ludhiana; the cheque was presented for clearance at Ludhiana; the memo indicating that payment had been stopped by the drawer was sent to the complainant at Ludhiana by his banker at Ludhiana. In view of above circumstances, it cannot be held that the Court at Ludhiana will not have jurisdiction to try the complaint. Petition is thus, dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.M-35118 of 2010 [3] November 30, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE