Criminal Misc. No.M-5293 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-5293 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 21, 2011 Chandan Bir Singh Chaddha and another ….petitioners Versus Surjit singh Nanda ….respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint No.110A/2 of 2010 dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. Malik, counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent when petitioner was not able to process the immigration of the son of the respondent to Canada. However, son of the respondent got a job in United Kingdom and accordingly petitioner was required to return the advance amount in the light of the above development. Initially a sum of ` 1 lac had been paid in May, 2010 and a cheque bearing No.154231 dated 09.06.2010 for a sum of ` 2 lac, out of the business account of M/s Young Ruben India Limited was issued. Subsequently, two cheques bearing No.924933 dated 30.05.2010 and cheque No.924936 dated 29.06.2010 both for sum of ` 2.5 lacs of Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, out of business account of the petitioner were issued. The 1- Criminal Misc. No.M-5293 of 2011 above mentioned cheques were presented by the respondent in his saving account, maintained by HDFC Bank, Ludhiana on 11.06.2010. These cheques were returned unrealized by the bankers with the remarks that funds were insufficient. Mr. Malik, has sought quashing of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and submits that cheques were issued, presented and dishonoured at Delhi. The Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Malik referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Harman Electronic (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Limited, 2009(1) SCC 720. Mr. Malik contends that the jurisdiction will not vests with the Court at Ludhiana because the cheques were issued at Delhi and also presented and dishonoured at Delhi. The ratio of judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the given facts of the case. In the present case, the cheques were presented in HDFC Bank at Ludhiana and subsequently it was not cleared by the Delhi Branch with the report that insufficient funds. The respondent-complainant had issued a notice to the accused-petitioner from Ludhiana which was duly served upon him so cause of action arises at Ludhiana. In the present case the demand for said payment was also made from Ludhiana within six months. The cheuqe was not cleared by the Delhi Branch of the petitioner on account of insufficient funds. As per ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Harman Electronics (supra) the Court at Ludhiana has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Dismissed. 21.02.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 2- Criminal Misc. No.M-5293 of 2011 vcgarg JUDGE 3-