TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion. 2. The basic transaction between the parties took place at Nagpur. The parties are residing at Nagpur. The cheques are also presented at Canara Bank at Nagpur. As it was bounced, the endorsement also made by the Canara Bank at Nagpur. However, the complainant had issued notice of demand from Aurangabad and as there was no compliance of the same, the present complaint has been filed at Aurangabad. 3. Both the parties have relied on K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in 1999CriLJ4606 . The Apex Court while considering the scheme of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and specially Sections 138, 139 and 118 of the Act observed in para 14 as under: 14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act." 4. The Apex Court in M/s. Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yash Pal Singh, reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 2029 , followed in Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., reported in 2006CriLJ1683 , further re-stated the basic ingredients which are necessary to lodge complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Those are as under: 9. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC') "cause of action" means every fact which it is necessary to establish to support a right or obtain a judgment. Viewed in that context, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand notice from Aurangabad but received at Nagpur, there was no cause of action arose at Aurangabad for the purpose of filing such complaint. The issuance of demand notice from Aurangabad, considering the scheme of N.I. Act, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot give jurisdiction to the Court at Aurangabad. 6. Admittedly, the basic transaction took place at Nagpur. The cheque was issued and presented at Nagpur. It was presented for a collection at Nagpur. It was dishonoured at Nagpur. The Bank from Nagpur has endorsed and returned the cheque at Nagpur for want of money. Taking into account above certain facts and all these basic ingredients if taken note of, a complaint in the circumstances should have been filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, reported in 2001CriLJ708 is as under: Mere dishonour of a cheque would not raise to a cause of action unless the payee makes a demand in writing to the drawer of the cheque for the payment and the drawer fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee. The object of issuing notice indicating the factum of dishonour of the cheques is to give an opportunity to the drawer to make the payment within 15 days, so that it will not be necessary for the payee to proceed against in any criminal action, even though the bank dishonoured the cheques. 8. The following are the other authorities which support the case of the petitioner : (i) P.K. Muraleedharan v. Pareed and another, reported in The Kerala Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t; (ii) Vuppala Venkata Nageshwara Rao v. Tulluri Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. reported in. Andhra Pradesh High Court after considering K. Bhaskaran 1999CriLJ4606 (supra) further re-stated that the Courts in whose jurisdiction the dishonoured cheque was presented for payment or the place where the cheque was returned unpaid by the drawee bank etc. would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 9. Indmark Finance and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another v. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, reported in 1992 (Supp) Cal wherein the Calcutta High Court has expressed that the cause of action arisen wholly in Calcutta where the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was committe....