Territorial jurisdiction under cheque dishonour law may lie where presentation and non-payment occur, keeping the chosen forum valid.

Territorial jurisdiction for a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on where the constituent acts of the offence occur. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction may lie in any court connected with the drawing, presentation, dishonour, issuance of notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period, and that the complainant may choose the forum where the cheque is presented through the bank and payment fails. Applying that principle, it held that the Bhiwani court had jurisdiction because the cheque was presented there and the statutory non-payment process was linked to that place; the complaint was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court at Bhiwani had territorial jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the cheque was presented through the complainant's bank at Bhiwani and the notice and non-payment also related to that place.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 is determined by the constituent acts of the offence and the place where one or more of those acts occur. The governing principle is that the offence is completed only when the cheque is drawn, presented, returned unpaid, notice is issued, and payment fails within the statutory period. The Court reaffirmed that the jurisdictional scope under the Negotiable Instruments Act is wide and that the complainant may institute proceedings at any court connected with one of the material acts constituting the offence. It distinguished the later decisions relied on by the accused and held that they did not displace the rule that jurisdiction can lie where the payee resides and presents the cheque for collection, with the consequential failure to pay occurring there.

Conclusion: The court at Bhiwani had territorial jurisdiction, and the complaint was maintainable there.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the High Court was correct in declining interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in upholding the complainant's chosen forum.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction may lie in any court where a constituent act of the offence occurs, including the place of presentation of the cheque and the place where payment fails within the statutory period.

---