1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 26809-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.9.2009 *** M/s Sonepat Poultry Market & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. M/s Sky Lark Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 5.5.2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred by the respondent. They appeared before the Court and after that were served with notice of accusation dated 9.8.2008 for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act ibid. Their revision against the said order dated 9.8.2008 has been dismissed by the revisional Court below by dint of an order dated 1.7.2009. Hence this petition seeking quashing of impugned complaint, summoning order, notice of accusation and order passed by the revisional Court. The main stress of learned counsel is that the court at Safidon where the proceedings are being initiated is having no territorial jurisdiction since nothing substantial was done there. Neither the agreement executed between the parties nor the cheque in dispute was issued at Safidon. Further, the banker of the complainant as well as that of accused are situated elsewhere and the complaint has been filed at Safidon (Jind) from where only legal notice demanding payment was issued. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that no ground to interfere is 2 made out. In the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762(1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the scope a plea of territorial jurisdiction in a case under Section 138 NI Act, adverted to five essential concatenation sine qua non for completion of an offence under Section 138 of the Act viz. (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 and (5) failure of the drawer of make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. And while taking into notice the provisions of Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the complainant can choose any of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. Paras 14 to 16 of K. Bhaskaran's case (supra) read as under:- “14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the con-catenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (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. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua nonfor the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : "Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of 3 such local areas." 16. Thus it is clear, if the 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. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the legal notice demanding the cheque amount was got issued by the complainant from Safidon and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reproduced above, leaves no manner of doubt that 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. Thus, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated in a Court situated at Safidon has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Further, learned counsel has argued that there was no legal and enforceable debt towards the petitioner and the instrument was not in respect of discharge of any legal liability but the same has been mis-used by respondent and that the cheques are being filled up by the respondent himself. But in the considered opinion of this Court, all these pleas have to be adjudicated upon only after the evidence is led by both the parties, being disputed questions of facts, which this Court is not required to determine at this stage. It is apt to mention here that the petitioner has not disputed his signatures upon the impugned cheque and thus, finding prima facie case for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he has rightly been served with a notice of accusation by the learned trial Court, as endorsed by the revisional Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4 which have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, that too in rarest of rare cases, which does not exist in the present case. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 23,2009 Jiten