IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.996 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Amrita Nand Guru Maa …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: October 21, 2010 Sri BS Adhikari, Adv. for the applicant Sri MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the CJM Dehradun, judgment and order dated 4.10.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC Dehradun and the proceedings of Case No.180 of 2007, Gurmail Singh Vs. Amrita Nand, pending before CJM, Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Gurmail Singh moved a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] in the court of CJM Derhadun that the petitioner issued a cheque no.292584 dated 18.11.06 for Rs.4.00 lacs of Bank of India Haridwar. When the said cheque was sent by the respondent no.2 through his Bank for clearing, it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement of “insufficient funds”. On 18.1.07 when the complainant came to know about the dishonour, he sent a notice through his advocate to the petitioner which was served upon him on 5.2.07 but the amount was not made good, hence he moved a complainant u/s 138 of the Act. Vide order dated 17.3.2007, the trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties and appreciating the material, summoned the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and moved an application stating therein that the disputed Cheque is of Bank of India, Jagdamba Niwas, Devpura, Haridwar and the cheque was presented by the complainant in his account at Haridwar which was dishonored in Haridwar itself. Hence the court of CJM Dehradun has no jurisdiction to hear over the matter. 2 The said application was rejected by the CJM Dehradun on 20.8.2010 being not maintainable. Against that order dated 20.8.2010, a revision was preferred, which too was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 4.10.10. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction. I do not find any force in this argument. It is now a well settled law that in case of dishonour of a Cheque, the complaint can be filed at five places, (1) from where the cheque was issued, (2) where it was presented for payment, (3) where it was returned being dishonored, (4) from where the notice was issued to the person who issued the cheque and (5) the place where even after receiving the notice, the payment was not made good. In the instant case, the cheque in question was having the stamp and seal of Punjab National Bank, Doiwala Dehradun, from which it revealed that the Cheque Memo about the dishonor of cheque was sent to the Punjab National Bank Doiwala by the Bank of India Haridwar Branch. It further reveals that the said Cheque was submitted by the complainant in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Doiwala. The notice was also sent by the complainant to the petitioner from Dehradun itself. Since the said Cheque was sent for payment within the jurisdiction of District Dehradun, hence it cannot be said in any way that the court of CJM, Dehradun was not having the jurisdiction to hear the matter and as such the trial court as well as the revisional court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. The orders passed by the trial court are perfectly valid and as per law and there is no reason to interfere with the said orders. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) October 21, 2010 Rdang