IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9768 of 2007 PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WAZIRGANJ, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KIRSHNA KUMAR AMBASTHA, SON OF LATE YOGESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SHIV NAGAR, KHEMI CHAK, P.S. GAURICHAK, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 5 1.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. This application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint petition does not disclose the date on which the money was borrowed, the date on which the legal notice was sent, the date on which he got information regarding the bouncing of the cheque and other facts. It has also been submitted that the payment was made at Gaurichak and, therefore, the Court at Patna does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance in this matter. Referring to the first aspect of the matter that the complaint petition does not contained details, counsel for the opposite party submits that he had filed list of documents along with the complaint petition which reveal the following facts:- “Date on the cheque, Date of presentation of cheque, Date on which Bank rejected it for insufficient funds, Date on which rejection is communicated to deponent, Date of issuance of 1st notice, Date of reply by petitioner and Date of filing of complaint.” In view of this fact, it is apparent that the Court has to 2 take into consideration the averments in the complaint petition along with the list of documents filed with the complaint. As such it cannot be said that the details have not been given by the complainant while filing the complaint petition. Referring to the second contention raised on behalf of the opposite party that the case cannot be tried by the Court at patna, on perusal of the cheque, I find that it has been issued to a Bank at Patna. Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the place on which the trial can take place. Specifically Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence committed, or (b)where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Considering the law on this point, I do not find any defect as far as the jurisdiction of the Court is concerned. In the result, the application to quash the order dated 25.8.2006 taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 119 of 2006 is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)