HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20497 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle from proceeding with STC.No.146 of 2008 and the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore from proceeding with C.C.No.328 of 2009 respectively. The afore-stated cases arose out of the dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. It is the contention of the petitioner that the afore-stated Courts had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), as the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bangalore and the petitioner himself was a permanent resident of Bangalore. Further the cheques issued by him were drawn upon the I.C.I.C.I bank at Bangalore. However, it is to be seen that the afore-stated cheques were deposited by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the bank falling within the local areas of the afore-stated Courts. The cheques, though they were drawn on a bank situated in Bangalore, are payable at par at all branches of the said bank in India. The factum of dishonour of the cheques was obviously communicated to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by their banks in the local areas falling within the jurisdiction of these Courts. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the cause of action did not arise in part within these local areas. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan[1], wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising under Section 138 of the Act, stated that the various components of an offence falling thereunder would include drawing of a cheque, presentation of the cheque to the bank, returning of the cheque unpaid, giving of notice in writing and failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of such notice. The Supreme Court further pointed out that all the above five acts need not be perpetrated within the same locality and that each of them could be done in five different localities. If these five different acts were done in five different localities, any one of the Courts in one of the five local areas, can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the light of the afore-stated observation by the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the Courts in the present case had jurisdiction under Section 177 Cr.P.C. to entertain the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The Writ Petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date:18.08.2010 usd [1] AIR 1999 SC 3762