Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases depends on legally relevant acts, not merely where statutory notice is sent.

Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise merely because the statutory notice was issued from a particular place. A unilateral dispatch of notice from Gurgaon was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Gurgaon court. As the cheque was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore, the jurisdictional ingredients were not established at Gurgaon. The complaint was therefore liable to be transferred to the competent court at Bangalore under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be retained at Gurgaon on the basis of issuance of statutory notice there and whether the matter should be transferred to Bangalore under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction for an offence under Section 138 does not arise merely because the complainant issued the statutory notice from a particular place. A unilateral act of sending notice from Gurgaon did not confer jurisdiction on the Gurgaon court. The cheque was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore, and the relevant jurisdictional ingredients could not be established at Gurgaon on the basis urged by the complainant. The settled position in the cited decisions supported transfer to the court having proper territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Gurgaon court lacked jurisdiction and the complaint was liable to be transferred to the competent court at Bangalore.

---