Crl. Misc. No.M-25466 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-25466 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 31, 2010 Sujata Fabs Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner Vs. M/s Sapra Handloom Emporium and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the complaint of the petitioner has been ordered to be returned back under Section 201 (a) Cr.P.C. to the complainant to be presented at Rewari, relying upon the judgment in Harman Electronics Private Limited and another Vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ratio of the judgment in M/s Harman Electronics case (supra) has been misinterpreted without Crl. Misc. No.M-25466 of 2010 [2] considering the fact that the cheque in dispute was presented by the petitioner- complainant in the HDFC Bank Ltd., G.T. Road, Panipat for clearance and encashment; the memo dated May 20, 2010 issued by the drawee Bank was returned to the petitioner at Panipat; and the notice was also issued from Panipat. It appears that merely because the cheque was drawn on Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Rewari, the complaint has not been entertained. Prima facie the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in contravention to the spirit and ratio of the judgment in M/s Harman Electronics case (supra). The trial Court has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Bansal, 2009 (160) DLT 379, to return the complaint. A perusal of the judgment of Delhi High Court indicates that it has nowhere been held in the said judgment that the place where the complainant is residing and the place where the cheque is presented for clearance, the Courts of the said place will not have jurisdiction. In the judgment of Delhi High Court a word of caution has been given that trial Courts who are dealing with cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are advised that after taking cognizance of the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is not open to them to suo motu throw out the criminal complaints abruptly by declaring that they do not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Reference to K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, (1999) 7 SCC 510 indicates that the place of drawing of cheque, its Crl. Misc. No.M-25466 of 2010 [3] presentation, its return, place of giving the notice and place of failure of drawer to make the payment would have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pertaining to bouncing of cheque and the complaint can be filed at any one of the five places and the choice will be of the complainant. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the legality and the propriety of the order passed by the trial Court, abruptly returning the complaint under Section 201 (a) Cr.P.C. requires to be determined by the revisional Court which Court will have an opportunity to appreciate the maintainability of the petition in reference to the contents of the complaint and the documents attached therewith and determine the legality and propriety of the order. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction does not seem to be permissible as certain facts on the basis of the record are to be appreciated by the revisional Court. Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional Court within a period of two weeks. In case the revision petition is filed within 15 days, it will be deemed to be within limitation. In case a request is made to the Registry for return of the certified copy of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the same would be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner retaining a photocopy of the same to enable the petitioner to file the same alongwith the revision petition to be filed before the Sessions Court. Crl. Misc. No.M-25466 of 2010 [4] The operation of the impugned order to file the complaint before the appropriate Court within 15 days will remain stayed till the filing of the revision petition by the petitioner. August 31, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE