1 Cri.appln.No.180 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2011 Venkatraman M.R. ... Applicant Versus M/s. Systematix Shares & Stocks (I) Ltd. and anr. ... Respondents Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R. Laxman i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The accused in the proceedings filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Mumbai seeks return of the complaint tobe present to proper court, on the ground that the Court at Mumbai had no jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the registered address of the complainant is at Chennai. The applicant resides at Chennai. The cheque was presented at Chennai. Merely 2 Cri.appln.No.180 of 2011 issuance of notice and compliance thereof as a part of statutory requirement at Mumbai by itself will not devolve jurisdiction at Mumbai. 4. Both the courts, i.e. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone into the recitals in the complaint as also the agreement between the parties. However, fact remains that issuance of notice at the address of the complainant at Corporate office issued at Mumbai is not in controversy. The demand of the amount of dishonour of chqeue was made from Mumbai and compliance was sought at Mumbai. Five categories illustrated in the judgment of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762 are as under : (i) drawing of the cheque (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank (iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; (iv) giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 5. It was held by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran's case if the above five different acts were done any of the court within the jurisdiction of which any of such act was done would have jurisdiction 3 Cri.appln.No.180 of 2011 to entertain the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This legal position was subsequently considered in the Harmans Electronics (P) Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1168. The Hon'ble Apex Court had again discussed the judgment in the matter of K. Bhaskaran to the extent of jurisdiction. 6. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Mrs. Preetha S. Babu Vs. Voltas Ltd. Cochin and anr. 2010 Cri.L.J. 2709 having elaborately discussed and referred to the above pronouncements of the Apex Court had indicated how the jurisdiction of the court has to be construed. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Prabhu Dayal Modi Vs. M/s. Euro Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2011 Cri.L.J. 110. The learned Single Judge did not advert to draw inference against pronouncement of K. Bhaskaran. On the facts of the case before the learned Judge, he found that it was on the part of the complaint to have issued notice from another place and he sought its place from Mumbai instead of Jaipur. In such situation, the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 15.10.2009 or that of the learned Additional Sessions 4 Cri.appln.No.180 of 2011 Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 1707 of 2009 dated 12.1.2011 does not call for any interference. Application lacks merit. Hence, the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)