Criminal Misc. No.M.8060 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M.8060 of 2011 Date of decision 08.12.2011. Ramesh Singla ...... Petitioner. versus M/s Dhariwal Steels & Wooden Furniture ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Shri N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by Ms.Renu Rana, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula whereby Criminal complaint No.135 dated 17.2.2011 titled Ramesh Singla vs. M/s Dhariwal Steel filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short – N.I.Act) by the petitioner has been returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate holding that Panchkula Court has no jurisdiction to try Criminal Misc. No.M.8060 of 2011 2 the complaint as the complainant is running his business at Chandigarh and the cheques in questions have been drawn on Syndicate Bank, SME Branch, Sector 17, Gurgaon and notice called upon accused to pay the cheques amount was issued to him at his address at Gurgaon. Transaction between the parties took place at Chandigarh. Complainant is claiming territorial jurisdiction of Panchkula Court only on the ground that the cheques were presented in the bank at Panchkula and intimation of its dishonour was received at Panchkula. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the motion stage and have gone through the records of the case. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in authority K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. reported in 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 385 (S.C.) held in para Nos. 14 to 16 as under :- “14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of facts. 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. Criminal Misc. No.M.8060 of 2011 3 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 non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. 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 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 anyone 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 ideal exercise to rise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.” 5. So, in the above said authority, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with Section 178 clause (d) of the Code has categorically laid down the law that complaint can be filed in any of the five places mentioned above. In the present case cheque was presented at Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is also residing at Criminal Misc. No.M.8060 of 2011 4 Panchkula. So, in view of the said ruling, part of cause of action has arisen at Panchkula. 6. Again this Court in Criminal Misc. No.M.23908 of 2010 Sat Narain vs. Madan Lal decided on August 18, 2010, has held that where the cheque is present, the Court at that place has the jurisdiction. 7. So, in view of the above discussion, the impugned order does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and consequently the same stands set aside. The case is remitted back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, at Panchkula for trial in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner, through counsel is directed to appear before the concerned Court at Panchkula on 10.1.2012. 9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 8 , 2011. sv.