Jurisdiction in cheque dishonour complaints depends on statutory requirements, not mere presentation or notice at the chosen forum.

Jurisdiction for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code, not by the complainant's choice of forum. Presentation of the cheque at a collecting bank in Bangalore did not by itself confer jurisdiction, because the relevant presentation is to the drawee bank. Issuance of statutory notice was also insufficient on its own, since service of notice and failure to pay within the statutory period complete the offence. The Karnataka HC therefore upheld return of the complaint and held that the Bangalore court had no jurisdiction on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be maintained before the Bangalore court on the basis that the cheque was presented for collection there and the statutory notice was issued there.

Analysis: The jurisdiction for a prosecution under Section 138 is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code and not by the mere choice of the complainant. Presentation of the cheque at a collecting bank does not by itself confer jurisdiction, because the relevant presentation contemplated by the statute is to the drawee bank. The issue of notice is not enough unless service of the notice and failure to pay within the statutory period complete the offence. The place where part of the transaction occurs cannot be used to multiply fora in a manner that causes harassment to the accused.

Conclusion: The Bangalore court had no jurisdiction on the facts stated, and the order returning the complaint was upheld.

---