TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file similar petitions being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 2.6.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. raising objection on the issue of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Court concerned on the grounds that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction. She also admitted that this Hon'ble Court had by order dated 3.12.2009 remanded the matter back to the trial Court to pass a fresh order after considering of the facts and documents filed by the parties and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to both and the issue of jurisdiction was to be decided within a month from the date of the order. 3. Consequently the tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) presentation of the cheque to the Bank; (iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank; (iv) giving of notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It may therefore be an idle exercise to question jurisdiction relating to this offence. High Court in appeal rightly set aside the finding of the trial Court that it had no territorial jurisdiction because the cheque had been dishonoured in a different district, outside its jurisdiction. Further on facts, High Court rightly held that trial Court had jurisdiction as the cheque had been issued at a shop within its jurisdiction . Further she relied on Shamshad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Court. She also cited various other cases which more or less reiterated the same view. Counsel urged that all the five acts had taken place within the jurisdiction in the Court at Chandigarh then the learned trial Court had erred in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act at Indore and prayed that the complaint be quashed. 5. She also urged that the complainant by filing reply stated that the cheque issued by the accused was presented by the complainant at the IDBI Bank, Branch at Indore for payment. The notices were issued to the accused at Indore and hence the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the matter and had prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C; whereas the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to try the matter. Counsel stated that the petitions are without merit and same be dismissed. 8. On considering the above submissions I find that all the five acts as per ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter K. Bhaskaran have taken place at Chandigarh and Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that although the cheque was presented at the IDBI Bank at Indore, the original drawe Bank would be the Bank at Chandigarh on which the cheque was drawn and in this light also I find that the complainant has no ground to file the complaint at Indore and there is substance in the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above foregoing discussions, the petitions are allowed. The complaint filed by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
